Open Challenge to Anyone....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2015, 10:38 PM
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
(31-08-2015 12:28 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  What if it was for the "betterment of the people reading" that you didn't post at all??
If I stopped arguing from logically sound and rational positions or if I started to argue, like you, from personal incredulity, delusions, and long debunked nonsense I would more than likely stop posting. Luckily I don't and, having a brain that actually works, am not likely to in the future.
I receive enough messages in my personal e-mail on a fairly regular basis to convince me that I have been a benefit to may people. even while dropping C-bombs. You are welcome to try and prove that I'm not, though I would wager you would be a failure in life at that too.Drinking Beverage

(31-08-2015 12:28 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  True...but again, allow me to recall your attention to my sentence above...
Your sentence above has no relevance to, and is in fact a cheap attempt to direct attention to, the fact that you tried to be "witty" without thinking it through and got spanked for it my points both before and above stand.


(31-08-2015 12:28 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I got a question for ya, Whisk..if I ran from you like a bitch, then why the HELL am I, right now, practically begging you or anyone else to debate one of those topics???

Makes no sense.
Actually it makes perfect sense given your track record and in fact I have touched on it before repeatedly and that is that : you are not interested in a debate where you can not control every, or most, aspects of the discussion. You are aware, consciously or subconsciously, that you can't put up even your regularly failing token resistance if the deck is not stacked in your favor. Like I have said before you are, at your core, just a basic shitty human being.

The facts are the facts, you issued a challenge and when it was accepted ran from it like a bitch the second conditions were placed on the debate that stopped you from being able to control it for your own benefit.

It makes entire sense given you're a peacocking little bitch who has to have his own way or he takes his ball and goes home.

(31-08-2015 12:28 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I'm waiting on DP, and once I get finished with him, I will issue another challenge to anyone else that wants some.
Once again proving your not interested in debate because you have already decided how the exchange is going to go before either person has even typed up an opening post. This is why you are a joke around here because you are just dishonest and delusional. You're also tacitly admitting that as soon as we refuse to give you the attention that you, wrongly, believe you deserve you will storm out in a hissy fit with your ball.

You just want attention, a soup box, and a place outside of Xbox live you can pretend to be a big tough man. It's sad.

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
02-09-2015, 12:11 AM
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
(25-08-2015 09:24 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I will glady/proudly debate any atheist on either of these traditional theistic arguments.

Cosmological Argument
Argument From Design
Argument From Consciousness
Ontological Argument
Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus

We can debate via video, forum, chat room, or even over the phone.

602-803-4433 is the number.

Quite frankly, you atheists, in my opinion, just talk too much shit for me. Too much. If you don't believe in god, fine...but the anger and arrogance which seems to accompany you to every discussion you engage with a theist in...is getting on my nerves (but who am I Big Grin ).

Again, an open challenge to ANYONE who would like to discuss any of the topics below (or otherwise). I am seeking a respectful, mature, and civil conversation, and if any of you have BALLS, you will engage.


OK!

1. cosmological argument and design is the same argument. This is a god of the gaps fallcy argument, I wil you lose, moving on.

2. Conciousness existing does in no way mean "your specific deity" exists any more then inserting the name of any other god. To argue there are differences otherwise or it does support yours is also a fallacy. I win you lose, Next!

3. The ontological argument is also a god of the gaps fallacy and Aquinas has been refuted many times over for hundreds of years, most real debaters don't really use this argument anymore. We have proven that according to the laws of the universe that NOTHING needs to have an outside force expelled onto it in order for it to work, the universe came into being under natural processes of what exists in a vacuum of nothing. Electrons can fire in and out of existence, exist in two places at once and so on. Ontological is just another god of the gaps, we don't understand the how or why, therefor god dunnit. I win you lose, Next!

4. Jesus never existed, we have proven this by showing 100% of everything he ever said, went too or did was just a plagerism of what egyptian and greek gods did way before the Jews ever conceived their idea of what a singlular god could had been like. I win you lose,

OK! I think we are done here!


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Shadow Fox's post
02-09-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
(02-09-2015 12:11 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  OK! I think we are done here!

Oh, he's been "done" for a long long time now.

Laugh out load

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2015, 11:59 AM
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  No, complete lack of beliefs.

The atheist claims "there is no god", the agostic claims "I don't know if God exists". When we are born, we don't know anything, therefore, a baby would be more close to agnostic than atheist.

In this case, "lacking belief" and "I don't know" are the same thing.

Since we lack the belief in absolutely EVERYTHING when we are born, even the woman that gave birth to us, I'm surprised as to why you would think that somehow pointing out that fact would give you any brownie points in any of this.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Throughout history, almost every last human being whom ever believed in a deity of any kind was indoctrinated by those who believed before them.

And what is the origins of the belief of those that were indoctrinated before them? Only three options..

1. They had some hellava imaginations, and God doesn't exist.

2. From the moment we are born, as we get older and wiser, our common sense intuition tells us that shit doesn't just "happen", therefore, God exists (in a nut shell).

3. The creation story began as a result of an actual creation, and over time people have adopted their own versions of the originate creation event...but if you go back in time the story can be traced to the actual ORIGINAL creation event (Genesis 1:1 :lolSmile

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Yet, the entire human race- every last one of us in human history- were all born with no religious beliefs at all. Every last person in every last civilization was born in an atheistic state of being.

That is the point, we lack a belief in EVERYTHING, not just theistic beliefs. I am still trying to figure out why you think that is such a knockdown argument for your case.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Truth is never anything you can choose to believe. Beliefs do not dictate what the truth is. There is absolutely nothing you can believe in that could approach what truth actually is.

1 + 1 = 2 is truth. Counting numbers 1 ... 2... 3 ... into infinity is truth. The impossibility of a square circle is truth.

I am talking about our KNOWLEDGE of the truth. If Christianity is true, and someone indoctrinates you on Christianity, then there would be no issue, would there?

The question is, is it true?

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Beliefs can only ever- at best- approximate truth, but never can they be the truth.

I don't know about that one...it seems to me that even necessary truths can still be "believed" despite their absolute truth value.

But this is all semantics.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  When you have to believe that you have the truth, rather than know what truth actually is, then you can never approach any degree of certainty in your life.

I don't think the question of "Do you believe 2+2=4" is an invalid question. It is still a belief, a TRUE belief.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Sounds to me like you are assuming the "natural atheistic state of being" is the default position...circular reasoning.

You do not understand what circular reasoning is, since it cannot be applied to my statement at all.

Actually, I do know what circular reasoning is...circular reasoning..

"a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c...+reasoning

And you said...

"You do understand that regardless of which religion anyone subscribes to, they are all living contrary to their natural atheistic state of being."


So you are basically saying "We should live our lives according to our naturalistic state, and anyone that subscribes to religious is living contrary to their natural state, which is the way they should."

That is the implication, and every example of circular reasoning would fit that kind of reasoning here.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Can you conclusively demonstrate that nature began to exist? Of course you cannot, for you lack that knowledge. You can make an assumption, but at the end of the day there are only two options:

1. Nature began to exist.
2. Nature always existed.

Since the origin of nature has never been discovered, how then can you conclude that it ever began?

I refuse to get sucked into a debate on the kalam here. If you want to discuss this, then meet me in the boxing ring.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Your concept is atypical of the religious indoctrination you've been subjected to

In that case, so have naturalists.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  which disallows you to consider and understand that ... perhaps there never was an origin to existence?

Then I shouldn't have reasons contrary to it.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  There are no gods, of any kind.

I am sure there is a cave somewhere in China. A cave that you've never explored. How do you know that there isn't a god inside that cave, since you've never been there? Have you ever been behind the sun? No, you haven't. So how do you know that there isn't a god behind the sun?

You are making absolute claims, claims of knowledge, although you have no evidence or basis for the claims. Wait a minute, I thought only believers were allowed to do that?

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Therefore, why concern ourselves with ancient belief systems as opposed to concerning ourselves with the here and now?

Since your above claim of knowledge isn't going to get you anywhere, any deduction that is made by the claim is futile. Irrelevant.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Yesterday's archaic beliefs do nothing for modern humanity, other than poison it with the fervour of zealots who's hatred of anything contradictory to their beliefs always results in violence, unrest, and stagnation of the future of humanity.

I would call evolution archiac, but it is a fairly new religion, isn't it? Laugh out load

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  You are "yesterday's man," and there's no room for you in the future.

There is room for God, though. Christianity ain't going nowhere, my friend.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  In other words, you need a deity to help you make sense of the world?

When it comes to origins, hell yeah.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  That's the easy way out

No it isn't. Saying that "God created the human body" doesn't stop me from wanting to learn about human anatomy and how the human body works...any more than knowing that man created computers won't stop a computer geek from opening up the motherboard and exploring the object.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  You are content to rest upon an ancient book

How old a book is has nothing to do with the truth value within it.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  full of wondrous tales speaking of impossible things while professing truth

Impossible to who? To you?

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  ... rather than unleashing your mind to the reality of nature

The reality is that we are here. The reality is also that we weren't always here. So the question becomes How Did We Get Here?

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  , and grasping for the axiomatic truths that stare you in the face each day

I am a human being with thoughts, feelings, emotions, intellect..operating a body that was configured in a very specified way...and I being told that I owe my existence to a process that doesn't think, can't feel, and can't see.

I just can't believe that. So again, instead of harping on how ridiculous my viewpoint is...just take a minute and ponder the ridiculousness of your owns.

(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Pitiful, isn't it?

Yeah, I agree, atheism is pitiful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Call_of_the_Wild's post
02-09-2015, 12:21 PM
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
(01-09-2015 10:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  If I stopped arguing from logically sound and rational positions or if I started to argue, like you, from personal incredulity, delusions, and long debunked nonsense I would more than likely stop posting.

Stopped? I didn't know you started Laugh out load

(01-09-2015 10:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I receive enough messages in my personal e-mail on a fairly regular basis to convince me that I have been a benefit to may people. even while dropping C-bombs.

Of course you do. By people that already agree with your worldview. Just like Christians uplift each other and give each other pats on the back. Nothing extraordinary.

(01-09-2015 10:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You are welcome to try and prove that I'm not, though I would wager you would be a failure in life at that too.Drinking Beverage

You say that, yet the challenge remains unmet by you...

(01-09-2015 10:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Your sentence above has no relevance to, and is in fact a cheap attempt to direct attention to, the fact that you tried to be "witty" without thinking it through and got spanked for it my points both before and above stand.

I acknowledged the truth value of what you said and at the same time deverted your attention to the "bigger" picture Laugh out load

(01-09-2015 10:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Actually it makes perfect sense given your track record and in fact I have touched on it before repeatedly and that is that : you are not interested in a debate where you can not control every, or most, aspects of the discussion. You are aware, consciously or subconsciously, that you can't put up even your regularly failing token resistance if the deck is not stacked in your favor. Like I have said before you are, at your core, just a basic shitty human being.

Yet me and DP are having a civil discussion at which it is on his terms and conditions.

Dude, just settle down, have a coke, and continue to take your medication as prescribed by your doctor Thumbsup

(01-09-2015 10:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The facts are the facts, you issued a challenge and when it was accepted ran from it like a bitch the second conditions were placed on the debate that stopped you from being able to control it for your own benefit.

It makes entire sense given you're a peacocking little bitch who has to have his own way or he takes his ball and goes home.

I don't have to accept bullshit terms and conditions.

(01-09-2015 10:38 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You just want attention, a soup box, and a place outside of Xbox live you can pretend to be a big tough man. It's sad.

Spare me the 3 year old crybaby shit and either accept the challenge, or drink a nice tall glass of "STFU".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2015, 12:25 PM
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
(02-09-2015 11:59 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I refuse to get sucked into a debate on the kalam here. If you want to discuss this, then meet me in the boxing ring.

Ah, so you are willing to engage in other debates, then? Wonderful.

I'm waiting.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2015, 12:32 PM
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
Rolleyes

no.

The fact that religion exists is not the litmus test for the posit that god exists. FEAR is a natural emotion, and drives us to survive. FEAR is the engine which powers religion. Fear of not knowing.....thus we must make up something, anything to fill the gap of knowledge...thus...god. When the early people saw things like lightning, storms, loved ones dying, etc....the natural thing would be to turn to their elders and ask....why? Now the elder has to maintain his prestigious position of knowledge and experience...and most likely they would go with the tree god is angry, or the water god is angry...how did the concept of creator come up? primitive observation....watching renewal of vegetation cycles, watching birth life and death cycles, and the questioning mind of human can make one assert that everything that exists came from something....if a mother births a child, then what birthed the world? A lot of ancient religions are based on these precepts...here, as usual, allow me to educate you. One of my written works on this:

Creation Myths
It has always amused me to consider the vast number of diversely different creation myths. There is no way I could capture them all in a forum post, but perhaps someday when I am bored I would like to write a book comparing and contrasting them all. For all I know there may be already an exhaustive number of books doing this very thing, I have not bothered to even Google the subject. Anyway, I will endeavor to cover the different types, and provide a couple of examples.

A creation myth is a symbolic story that merges indigenous cultural history, and sometimes contain a smattering of historical events that have been passed down through oral tradition. Analysis of creation myths usually reflect a unique worldview and contain a framework that places this group of believers in a universal context. There are five major classifications of creation myths. Let’s go through them briefly:

Ex Nihilo

This is Latin for “out of nothing” and is a common type of mythical creation. This can be found in religions from ancient Egypt, the Bible, the Quran, the Rig Veda (1700-1100 BCE ancient Indian texts leading to Hinduism), and a plethora of animistic (worldview that animals, plants, and inanimate objects possess a spiritual essence) religious cultures found in Africa, Asia, and North America. Ancient third millennium (3000 – 2100 BCE) Sumerian Mesopotamian creation myths were extremely complex and includes seven different “disputations” (formal debates). These deeply philosophical disputations address humanity’s place in the world. One of the most popular of these disputations was the debate between sheep and grain (Black, Cunningham, Robson & Zolyomi, 1998).

Quintessentially, these ex nihilo creation myths can sometimes blur the line between creation ex nihilo (from nothing) and creation from chaos. In ex nihilo type creation myths the very substance of creation springs from within the creator.

Creation from chaos

In these myth creations, there is nothing but a shapeless, formless expanse. This expanse contains the material with which the created world will be made. This expanse is like a vapor, or water, dimensionless, and the very definition of disorder. The act of creation is a promulgation of order from disorder. It is intriguing that this world perspective usually believes that at some point order will degenerate back into this disorder at some point.

World parent

In these myth creations, there are a set of parents for the world. One version of this describes the primeval state as an eternal union of two parents, and the creation takes place when the two are pulled apart. Commonly, the two parents are identified as sky (male) and earth (female) who were so tightly bound to each other that no offspring could emerge. Another form of world parent creationism is that creation sprung from the dismembered parts of the body of the primeval being. Usually the limbs, hair, blood, organs, etc. are somehow severed or sacrificed and become sky, Earth, animal or plant life, and other worldly features. An example of world parents mythology can be found in Maori(New Zealamd) mythology (Biggs, 1966).

Emergence

In these myth creations humanity emerges from another world into this one. The previous world is viewed as the womb for the earth mother, and the act of emergence was like the birth of humanity. These are generally found in Native American cultures where the myths correlate the emergence of people from a hole in the underworld. An example of this can be found in the Pueblo peoples. Their “temple”or room from which they practice their religious rituals was called a Kiva, and there would normally be a small round hole in the floor representing the portal through which the ancestors first emerge from the underworld (Vivian, Gordon, Reiter, & Paul, 1965).

Earth-diver

In these myth creations a supreme being usually sends an animal into the primal waters to find bits of sand from which to build habitable land. This focuses on the beginnings emanating from the depths. These are also common in Native American folklore, and found amongst the Chukchi (Russian indigenous people residing along the shores of the Chukchi Sea), Yukaghir (Russian indigenous people living in East Siberia), Tatars (Old Turkic people living in Asia and Europe who were one of five major tribal confederations and the Mongolian Plateau in the 12th century) and several Finno-Ugrian (ancient Hungarian mythology) traditions. The earth-diver is the first of them to awaken and lay the necessary groundwork by building suitable lands so that the coming creation web a place to live. For example the ancient Finnic mythology had an emphasis on astronomy, and it’s creation myth involved a world egg and a world pillar.

one of my favorite creation stories

Pima Creation story.

These Native American Indians lived in the Arizona desert along the Gila and Salt rivers and were named “Pima” in the 15th century by the Spanish, who later recorded their stories. Here is their creation story:

In the beginning there was no earth, no water – nothing. There was only a Person, Juhwert-a-Mah-kai, “The Doctor of the Earth.”

He just floated, for there was no place for him to stand upon. There was no sun, no light, and he just floated about in the darkness, which was Darkness itself.

He wandered around in the nowhere till he thought he had wandered enough. Then he rubbed on his breast and rubbed out moah-haht-tack, that is, perspiration, or “greasy earth.” This he rubbed out on the palm of his hand and held out. It tipped over three times, but the fourth time it stayed straight in the middle of the air and there it remains now as the world.

The first bush he created was the greasewood bush.

And he made ants, little tiny ants, to live on that bush, on its gum which comes out of its stem.

But these little ants did not do any good, so he created white ants, and these worked and enlarged the earth, and they kept on increasing it, larger and larger until it at last was big enough for himself to rest upon.

Then he created a Person. He made him out of his eye, out of the shadow of his eyes, to assist him, to be like him, and to help him in creating trees and human beings and everything that was to be on the earth.

The name of this being was Noo-ee – the buzzard.

Noo-ee was given all power, but he did not do the work he was created for. He did not care to help Juh-wert-a-Mah-kai, but let him go by himself.

And so The Doctor of the Earth himself created the mountains and everything that has seed and is good to eat. For if he had created human beings first they would have had nothing to live on.
……………………………………..
Isn’t mythology fun?

References:

Biggs, B. B. (1966). Maori Myths and Traditions. Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, 3 Volumes. (Government Printer: Wellington). Print.

Black, J.A., Cunningham, G., Robson, E., and Zólyomi, G. (1998). The debate between sheep and grain, The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, Oxford. Print.

Vivian, Gordon; Reiter, Paul (1965), The great kivas of Chaco Canyon and their relationships. University of New Mexico Press. Print.

...........................

As usual, I have much to teach you, but your mind is shut, and your vision blocked by the blindfold of faith. Read, research, fucking think, and evolve.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
02-09-2015, 04:23 PM
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
(02-09-2015 12:25 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Ah, so you are willing to engage in other debates, then? Wonderful.

I'm waiting.

Not at the same time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2015, 07:52 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2015 08:10 PM by Free.)
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
(02-09-2015 11:59 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  No, complete lack of beliefs.

The atheist claims "there is no god", the agostic claims "I don't know if God exists". When we are born, we don't know anything, therefore, a baby would be more close to agnostic than atheist.

In this case, "lacking belief" and "I don't know" are the same thing.

Since we lack the belief in absolutely EVERYTHING when we are born, even the woman that gave birth to us, I'm surprised as to why you would think that somehow pointing out that fact would give you any brownie points in any of this.

For atheists, yes, there is no god, but also, there is a complete and total lack of beliefs in any gods.

For agnostics, their answer is "I do not know," but that answer can only be given to a question asked. When we are born, no questions are asked to be agnostic about.

A child is born in complete ignorance of any beliefs, and cannot say "I do not know." The child is born "lacking beliefs" in any gods, which is the state and very definition of atheism, as opposed to the uttered claim of "There are no gods."

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Throughout history, almost every last human being whom ever believed in a deity of any kind was indoctrinated by those who believed before them.

And what is the origins of the belief of those that were indoctrinated before them? Only three options..

1. They had some hellava imaginations, and God doesn't exist.

2. From the moment we are born, as we get older and wiser, our common sense intuition tells us that shit doesn't just "happen", therefore, God exists (in a nut shell).

3. The creation story began as a result of an actual creation, and over time people have adopted their own versions of the originate creation event...but if you go back in time the story can be traced to the actual ORIGINAL creation event (Genesis 1:1 :lolSmile

The answer is 1, for we see the handiwork of those "helluva imaginations" being portrayed in every religious book ever written.

Your # 2 fails for it is nothing more than a "God of the Gaps" argument, a logical fallacy.

Your # 3 fails as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any original creation event from Genesis, and no evidence to even support the possibility of the creation event in Genesis ever occurring. It can be scientifically proven wrong by merely applying the Evidence of Absence and Proof of Impossibility methods, with both producing a null result.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Yet, the entire human race- every last one of us in human history- were all born with no religious beliefs at all. Every last person in every last civilization was born in an atheistic state of being.

That is the point, we lack a belief in EVERYTHING, not just theistic beliefs. I am still trying to figure out why you think that is such a knockdown argument for your case.

Now you have contradicted yourself, for you have been arguing for an agnostic state of being, but now here you admit it is the definition of atheism?

It is a knowdown argument because it is true. Nobody can become an atheist, because atheism is the point we all start out from, and from there we get indoctrinated into various religious beliefs. One can only revert back to their original state of atheism by rejecting religious claims.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Truth is never anything you can choose to believe. Beliefs do not dictate what the truth is. There is absolutely nothing you can believe in that could approach what truth actually is.

1 + 1 = 2 is truth. Counting numbers 1 ... 2... 3 ... into infinity is truth. The impossibility of a square circle is truth.

I am talking about our KNOWLEDGE of the truth. If Christianity is true, and someone indoctrinates you on Christianity, then there would be no issue, would there?

The question is, is it true?

No, no beliefs can ever be true, not even scientific beliefs. Only provable facts are true, such as 1 + 1 = 2, Primacy of Existence, etc.

Truth is not something believed, for it is axiomatic.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Beliefs can only ever- at best- approximate truth, but never can they be the truth.

I don't know about that one...it seems to me that even necessary truths can still be "believed" despite their absolute truth value.

Truths are self evident. They are axiomatic. 1 + 1 = 2 is true, and will be true for all of eternity, everywhere in the universe. It is not something believed, but rather something that is universally known.

You do not have to believe that 1 + 1 = 2, because you know it's true. But on the question of religious beliefs, you believe without it being universally known; without it being axiomatic, and without it being demonstrated as conclusively true.

What you believe to be true is not the same as truth itself.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  When you have to believe that you have the truth, rather than know what truth actually is, then you can never approach any degree of certainty in your life.

I don't think the question of "Do you believe 2+2=4" is an invalid question. It is still a belief, a TRUE belief.

Do you really think it requires belief to conclude that 2 + 2 = 4? If you go to the link about regarding Primacy of Existence, you will learn that existence persists regardless of whether or not humans exist.

So, if humans did not exist, would 2 + 2 still = 4? Would 1 + 1 still equal 2?

If you have understood, you will know that of course those simple equations would still be true regardless if humans existed or not. Axiomatic truths do not require human perception to exist, for they will always persist without us.

1 + 1= 2 is a universal truth, and an eternal truth. It was true before the earth was ever created, and will be true long after the earth is gone.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  You do not understand what circular reasoning is, since it cannot be applied to my statement at all.

Actually, I do know what circular reasoning is...circular reasoning..

"a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/c...+reasoning

And you said...

"You do understand that regardless of which religion anyone subscribes to, they are all living contrary to their natural atheistic state of being."

So you are basically saying "We should live our lives according to our naturalistic state, and anyone that subscribes to religious is living contrary to their natural state, which is the way they should."

No, my quote doesn't imply that at all. It's very straight forward: "Regardless of which religion anyone subscribes to, they are all living contrary to their natural atheistic state of being."

Here is circular reasoning:

1. Jack: The Bible is the word of God!
2. John: How do you know?
3. Jack: Because the bible tells me so!
4. John: How do you know that the bible is true?
5. Jack: Because the Bible is the word of God!

Both numbers 1 & 5 demonstrate the completion of circular reasoning. That type of cycle is not present in my statement.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Can you conclusively demonstrate that nature began to exist? Of course you cannot, for you lack that knowledge. You can make an assumption, but at the end of the day there are only two options:

1. Nature began to exist.
2. Nature always existed.

Since the origin of nature has never been discovered, how then can you conclude that it ever began?

I refuse to get sucked into a debate on the kalam here. If you want to discuss this, then meet me in the boxing ring.

I am the last one on this forum you would ever want to meet up with in the boxing ring. I tend to counter all arguments with axiomatic truths of which are so self evident as to confound you. All that you believe will be forced to prove whether or not they are "truths," and I will easily demonstrate they are not truths, but mere beliefs.

And then I will actually prove my points with axiomatic truths, so self evident, that you will look horribly intellectually depraved to deny them. I will corner you, and checkmate you, without ever losing so much as a pawn.

So ... is that what you really want? Smile

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Your concept is atypical of the religious indoctrination you've been subjected to

In that case, so have naturalists.

Since naturalists do not proclaim a non evidenced deity, there can be no comparison. We make no positive conclusive claims in regards to existence, other than "We do not know," for the simple reason that we respect the truth enough to not make a positive conclusion based upon belief.

Sure, there is good solid evidence for naturalist to believe something to be true, but that's only because there is good solid evidence that can be demonstrated as being true in of itself because it is self evident.

But in religious beliefs, expecting rational people to jump to the conclusion of a deity is unrealistic, and intellectually dishonest, especially since there is absolutely no evidence that cannot be countered with self evident evidence for naturalism.

When you have something that is self evident verses something that is merely a belief, which side should you intellectually choose to subscribe to? The axiomatic truth of 1 +1 = 2, or the concept of an unprovable, non evidenced deity?

Pick one, and tell me which one is actually a truth for a certainty, if you care to employ intellectual honesty over what it is you merely believe.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  which disallows you to consider and understand that ... perhaps there never was an origin to existence?

Then I shouldn't have reasons contrary to it.

You are correct, you shouldn't have any good reasons to be contrary to it. In fact, the intellectually honest answer is that you do not know, and therefore you should never confirm as fact neither point of view.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  There are no gods, of any kind.

I am sure there is a cave somewhere in China. A cave that you've never explored. How do you know that there isn't a god inside that cave, since you've never been there? Have you ever been behind the sun? No, you haven't. So how do you know that there isn't a god behind the sun?

You are making absolute claims, claims of knowledge, although you have no evidence or basis for the claims. Wait a minute, I thought only believers were allowed to do that?

Go back to the link I posted above and learn about Evidence of Absence and Proof of Impossibility. You will learn that evidence of absence is considered to be positive evidence of the absence of anything that is claimed to exist, but doesn't exist. Then, attempt to prove the existence of your deity by using the Proof of Impossibility, and you will learn that it is impossible, meaning- no existence- to prove the existence of your deity.

Either way, the evidence clearly demonstrates that there is no God, and we can know that there is no God in the same way that we can know when something else is not present, or does not exist.

We can know when something exists, and we can know when it doesn't. We know because we can observe the existence of something, and we can also know by observing the empty space where there is no claimed existence.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  Yesterday's archaic beliefs do nothing for modern humanity, other than poison it with the fervour of zealots who's hatred of anything contradictory to their beliefs always results in violence, unrest, and stagnation of the future of humanity.

I would call evolution archiac, but it is a fairly new religion, isn't it?

Evolution has been demonstrated as having far to much evidence to ever be discounted with any degree of intellectual honesty. You cannot contest the evidence of evolution with beliefs from an old book, or from any old book. You cannot contest it with fringe theories, conspiracy theories, nor will throwing rocks at it do you one bit of good.

Religionists hate evolution with a passion, and their only recourse is to proclaim it as being some kind of religion, when the truth is that it is based upon solid scientific fact finding and research.

Intellectually, it is indisputable. In fact, religionist who attempt to dispute it come off as pitiful and desperate, and have no idea how much they actually embarrass themselves.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  You are "yesterday's man," and there's no room for you in the future.

There is room for God, though. Christianity ain't going nowhere, my friend.

It's already in great decline. When I was a child just 40 years ago, everybody I knew went to church. Now, I don't know hardly anyone who goes to church. As greater education continues, so does the reasoning capabilities of the students, and as reason and rationality grows, scepticism of fantastic claims is enforced.

The world is becoming more and more secular with each passing day, and eventually religious beliefs will be openly scorned and ridiculed by government officials, mass media, celebrities, etc. Even now, "political correctness" is saying, "Don't say Merry Christmas, but rather say, "Happy Holidays."

It's already here, and blind-siding your religion from every angle. It is unstoppable, unavoidable, and totally inevitable.

Quote:
(31-08-2015 07:09 PM)Free Wrote:  In other words, you need a deity to help you make sense of the world?

When it comes to origins, hell yeah.

Have you ever honestly tried to see it any other way? Have you ever thought about what would be so wrong with simply dying and existing no more? Was there anything you knew or feared before you were born into existence? No? Then why would you think that there would be anything to know or fear when you die out of existence?

Making sense of existence only requires you to question all of your beliefs with the utmost personal integrity, fearlessness, and intellectual honesty. Until you do that, you can never approximate the truth because you are too afraid to question what you currently believe in to be able to cut the aprons strings from your deity, and take your very first steps towards the realm of reason.

The answers you want are all out there. It's time to grow up, leave your "mama" behind, and stand on your own two feet.

That is ... if you are man enough?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 11:08 PM
RE: Open Challenge to Anyone....
(02-09-2015 12:21 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Stopped? I didn't know you started Laugh out load
Proving once again you cant even recognize those qualities. Please do tell though, off the top of your head, what was an argument I made that was from personal incredulity, demonstrated delusion, or long considered to be debunked? Or are you just trying to be a tedious cunt?

Responses like the one above is why I don't give you anything more than a passing consideration. You insult like your debate: with all the skill and aptitude of a 5 year old.

(02-09-2015 12:21 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Of course you do. By people that already agree with your worldview. Just like Christians uplift each other and give each other pats on the back. Nothing extraordinary.
Except that no, that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about letters from people on the fence, the lurkers, many of which held the exact opposite world view until me (and may others here) exposed the flaws in that thinking. I used to BE one of them for fuck sake. While I was not familiar with the term at the time I was at one point a Deist and made a lot of the same arguments that Deists still make and I continued to make them until the holes in the logic became apparent and I stopped being a Deist.
I've gotten a few from Christians who are still very much Christians they just don't use some of the arguments they used to because they have spent time here and come to see exactly why those arguments are nonsense.

Don't make assumptions about my inbox.

(02-09-2015 12:21 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  You say that, yet the challenge remains unmet by you...
I accepted the challenge months ago but the debate never happened because YOU chose to avoid it. You don't get to blame me for your cowardice.

Nice try though.

(02-09-2015 12:21 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I acknowledged the truth value of what you said and at the same time deverted your attention to the "bigger" picture Laugh out load
There is nothing "big picture" about a hypothetical that has no resemblance to reality. You tried, and failed, to be clever, got spanked, and tried to divert away from it. Asking me if I'd stop posting if it was better for the people observing is no more "big picture" then asking me if I'd stop posting if Cthulhu emerged from his watery prison to fest on the souls of the damned because neither question has anything to do with the reality of the fucking situation.
If you are trying to say that "the betterment of the people reading" is the big picture then you are asking me to be redundant because I've already explained that entire line of thought as it pertains to the reality of the situation. Either way your being tedious and it's dull.

(02-09-2015 12:21 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yet me and DP are blah blah blah....
As I've stated several times now the fact that you and DP are engaged in a, currently, civil (despite the fact that last time you bailed from the debate when it started going pear shaped for you without countering the objections raised in his last few posts while also, falsely, claiming victory in it at any chance you could get after the thread was closed) debate does not change the fact that I accepted your challenge and the second I put conditions on it to keep you from trying to control it you ran off and pretended like it didn't happen.
You ran like a bitch and now you are trying to put that blame on me and that's just hilariously transparent.

(02-09-2015 12:21 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I don't have to accept bullshit terms and conditions.
No you don't, but I've already asked you to list a single condition I made and to demonstrate that any one of them was "bullshit" and it seems now like you don't even know one of them and are just making excuses.
It's also one thing to not accept a challenge from me because you don't like my conditions and it's something else entirely to spend weeks ignoring my challenge, and acceptance of yours, while selectively editing those parts out of my posts you do actually respond to like you did.
I get that you want to save what little face you still have but I'm really not interested in your trying to rewrite history.
You don't have to accept conditions you think are bullshit and I fully agree in the same way I don't have to accept challenges on topics I know to be bullshit, and in many cases centuries debunked bullshit.


(02-09-2015 12:21 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Spare me the 3 year old crybaby
First off I'm not crying about the fact that you're an attention whore I'm just bringing it to your attention. Secondly when you have ran from a challenge for months like a lil' bitch you don't get make demands about what challenges other people should accept or not.Drinking Beverage

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: