National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2012, 02:13 PM
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 01:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(17-12-2012 10:25 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Of course I believe I am right. That is the point of a debate. It is your job to provide me evidence to the contrary. Oh, and the reason you find that I rarely admit I am wrong on this forum is because not many people provide compelling evidence contradicting my positions. If you want multiple examples of me admitting I am wrong, and or losing an argument, ask Atothetheist and Vosur.
Kinda, there is nothing wrong with having your own take on a debate and forwarding it. I see the point of a debate somewhat differently, the point is not so much to win, it is to advance understanding of the topic for both parties. If I "win" a debate and learn nothing in the process that is less satisfactory to me than "losing" and learning about the subject. Perhaps, the issue of compelling evidence is were we have problems, mostly the debates we have been involved in are not about evidence as the topics have been pretty subjective and really come down to personal preference. Of course, I don't like the position you take in these matters as much as you don't like my stance, but meh. As for asking others, I might think your rude and overly convinced of your own certitude, but I don't think your dishonest, so I'll take you at your word on that.
I have engaged in one major debate with you, and that was concerning the validity of omnipotence and God. That is not subjective.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:17 PM
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 02:13 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 01:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Kinda, there is nothing wrong with having your own take on a debate and forwarding it. I see the point of a debate somewhat differently, the point is not so much to win, it is to advance understanding of the topic for both parties. If I "win" a debate and learn nothing in the process that is less satisfactory to me than "losing" and learning about the subject. Perhaps, the issue of compelling evidence is were we have problems, mostly the debates we have been involved in are not about evidence as the topics have been pretty subjective and really come down to personal preference. Of course, I don't like the position you take in these matters as much as you don't like my stance, but meh. As for asking others, I might think your rude and overly convinced of your own certitude, but I don't think your dishonest, so I'll take you at your word on that.
I have engaged in one major debate with you, and that was concerning the validity of omnipotence and God. That is not subjective.
Sure it is, or at least its not a matter you can bring evidence to bare on.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:24 PM
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 02:17 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 02:13 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I have engaged in one major debate with you, and that was concerning the validity of omnipotence and God. That is not subjective.
Sure it is, or at least its not a matter you can bring evidence to bare on.
It is easily disprovable by definition, even in the Aquinian definition you supported.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:42 PM
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 02:24 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 02:17 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Sure it is, or at least its not a matter you can bring evidence to bare on.
It is easily disprovable by definition, even in the Aquinian definition you supported.
Then prove it.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:52 PM
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 02:42 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 02:24 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is easily disprovable by definition, even in the Aquinian definition you supported.
Then prove it.
I cannot prove it, but I can disprove it using demonstrable laws. You can go ahead and look at the thread.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 03:16 PM
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 01:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  If I "win" a debate and learn nothing in the process that is less satisfactory to me than "losing" and learning about the subject.
It doesn't seem like you have learned much from our discussion about whether or not agnostic atheism is a belief system. You insisted on being correct despite being shown that your arguments are fallacious. I think you're the wrong person to complain about the attributes of others in a discussion.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 05:45 PM
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 03:16 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 01:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  If I "win" a debate and learn nothing in the process that is less satisfactory to me than "losing" and learning about the subject.
It doesn't seem like you have learned much from our discussion about whether or not agnostic atheism is a belief system. You insisted on being correct despite being shown that your arguments are fallacious. I think you're the wrong person to complain about the attributes of others in a discussion.
Just because youve declared your self the winner there, doesnt mean I have to concur. Just because you wish to limit the the concept of belief system to be exclusively religious in nature, doesnt mean I have to concur. I took a opposite view to what you stipulated there, and what you said didn't sway me from my understanding of how the english language works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

There again, a definition that easily includes agnostic atheism, if you want you can google it yourself at see that there are dozens of links that also state this fallacious argument, sorry you dont like it, but any interrelated groups of beliefs are a belief system.

Anywhoo, Im sure none of that is gonna change your mind because its not just me thats wrong is it?

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 06:08 PM
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 02:52 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 02:42 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Then prove it.
I cannot prove it, but I can disprove it using demonstrable laws. You can go ahead and look at the thread.
All of thats all well and good, but it ignores the fact that if he exists God is a dick, with a vested interest and the power to thwart any attempt to prove/discover him. Also, being omnipotent you cant outwit him with logic, he could transcend that as easily as he well could do anything else.

This argument also ignores somewhat, that within omnipotence is the power not to act, your test falls flat because you can not determine if in every instance where "God" is being tested he chooses not to act, or act in such a way that your test delivers a negative result.

But as you say this "God" is such a ridiculous concept and the powers subscribed to him are literally he can do anything, literally as in literally, God can not only make a rock he cant lift, he can make it and juggle it with 27 identical copies a chainsaw and your preconceptions whilst having a sing a long with the colour blue and using Einstien's head to right out the formula for 1+1=giraffe and show its correct.

Trying to nail such an being down with what 2 sentences, is just silly. Not only is it somewhat silly, its also pointless, those who believe, do so without need of proof, your as right to not belief without it. I cant prove anything concerning the nature of God, but far more importantly to my mind than the lack of proof for God, is the lack of a need for one. Science sure doesnt have an answer for everything, but the general framework is robust enough, that you can happily see all there is within its mechanics, without any need for a divine or supernatural.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 07:21 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2012 07:33 PM by Vosur.)
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 05:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Just because youve declared your self the winner there, doesnt mean I have to concur.
Care to cite the post in which I've explicitly declared myself the winner?

(18-12-2012 05:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

There again, a definition that easily includes agnostic atheism, if you want you can google it yourself at see that there are dozens of links that also state this fallacious argument, sorry you dont like it, but any interrelated groups of beliefs are a belief system.
Neither here, not in the other thread were you able to cite even a single one of those "dozens of links" that supposedly agree with you. What doesn't seem to get into your head is that it's semantical nonsense to call the absence of a belief in gods a system of belief; it doesn't make any sense. If anything, agnostic atheism is a philosophical position. If you disagree, provide me with an actual argument that is supported by external sources.

What "interrelated groups of beliefs" is agnostic atheism supposed to consist of?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 08:23 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2012 08:27 PM by Humakt.)
RE: National implications if NOT voting was made illegal?
(18-12-2012 07:21 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 05:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Just because youve declared your self the winner there, doesnt mean I have to concur.
Care to cite the post in which I've explicitly declared myself the winner?

(18-12-2012 05:45 PM)Humakt Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

There again, a definition that easily includes agnostic atheism, if you want you can google it yourself at see that there are dozens of links that also state this fallacious argument, sorry you dont like it, but any interrelated groups of beliefs are a belief system.
Neither here, not in the other thread were you able to cite even a single one of those "dozens of links" that supposedly agree with you. What doesn't seem to get into your head is that it's semantical nonsense to call the absence of a belief in gods a system of belief; it doesn't make any sense. If anything, agnostic atheism is a philosophical position. If you disagree, provide me with an actual argument that is supported by external sources.

What "interrelated groups of beliefs" is agnostic atheism supposed to consist of?
Care to, sure. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid222984

Neither here, nor in the the last thread were I cite and more yet you quote a link that agrees with me and you say I need to supply. The opening statement, not only agrees with me it is almost verbatim what I said. To wit:

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always a part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise.[1]

What you fail to get is all communication is semantic, that totally ignoring stuff you dont agree with doesnt make you right.

You say:If anything, agnostic atheism is a philosophical position. - Wiki says: The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always a part of a belief system.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=belief...=firefox-a

There you go theres the google search on belief system, well belief system define. See if you can find one thats supports your position, Ive no doubt you'll be able to, but it'll save me reading them all.

Lastly, dont ask me to provide you external sources when you have been provided them, not only before but only a few posts ago here. If your gonna ask for external sources and I supply them, then you say I need to provide sources whilst not even addressing them and then say Im wrong because you ignore what Im posting, then fine your Mr Clever and Im a fucktard. Now you can believe what you want, but if you want me to take what you say in way seriously, you'll need to up your game some what.

So, you can disagree with me on the subject, you can disagree with the wiki, the dictionary and the rest of them and thats fine, more power to you. What you dont get to do is ignore them or worse yet say they dont exist when I have to post them over and over again.

Charitably, I could ascribe this all to a lack of understanding of the finer points of how english works it not being your native tongue, but I dont really belief its your english thats at fault, I really think your just being dishonest. Now, Im sorry that for some reason you find the idea that you have a belief system threatening or offensive or whatever, but thats not my problem and I dont feel compelled in anyway to butcher the english language to make you feel better.

Lastly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

I'll just post it again, in case you missed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always a part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always a part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always a part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always a part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise.[1]


Oi Gevalt!

EDIT:What "interrelated groups of beliefs" is agnostic atheism supposed to consist of?

Missed this.

Agnostism is a belief, atheism is a belief theyre interraleted in that they refer to the same fucking thing.

And before you ask https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=belief...80&bih=852

be·lief
/biˈlēf/
Noun

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Synonyms
faith - trust - confidence - persuasion - credence

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: