Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Atheists and Christians Are The Same

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:28:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've always marvelled at how much pleasure some outspoken atheists seem to derive from constantly bashing Christians by calling them 'Stupid,' 'Irrational' or 'Ignorant.'
The primary reason for such assertions usually boils down to a matter of faith. These handful of atheists seem to claim that Christians reject logic in favor of faith and therefore are irrational.
I don't dispute that Christians have faith. Nor do I dispute that faith is belief in something without evidence or proof.
What I do say is that calling Christians 'stupid' 'irrational' or 'ignorant' for having faith is hypocritical. Why? Because all atheists also have faith--or forgo the belief in the unproven for good-ol-fashioned ignorance. (I'll bury the lead for a second more.)
I'd contend that all humans have faith in something, but then again I am a strong advocate of the Munchhausen Trilemma. I, and it, assert that no one can prove anything ever without resorting to a logical fallacy or an axiom (core belief that is assumed true 'because it...')
So why do I say atheists either embrace faith or ignorance themselves? It comes back to the question that every atheist is sick of hearing: "Where did anything come from?"
An atheist may purport the authenticity of the Big Bang Theory. (Many christians adopt this view as well and simply add God as a catalyst.) However, one must ask what was the catalyst for the Big Bang Theory? What was the origin of original matter? Where did it come from? What caused/created it?
An Atheist has two options: he/she can either claim 1. It was always there (faith-based axiom plus it raises the whole problem of infinite things being incapable of ariving at a specific point in time such as 'the big bang') or 2. Say that they don't know. (Ignorance. Not ignorance by choice, but ignorance all the same. Adding 'yet' to the end of that sentence doesn't change the ignorance.)
So are Christians Ignorant? Yes. Irrational? They have faith... so a tentative yes. Stupid? Not all.
But Atheists are also either ignorant or irrational (They either don't know or have faith.)

I guess all of this is to say, I am so tired of Atheists and Christians constantly resorting to name-calling and bashing. It's petty. It's also entirely exhausting to behold.

Anyway, do you guys agree with my argument? Disagree? Why? Is there a third option an atheist may choose for the origin of matter/universe? I'd love to hear it. While you're at it, I have two debates in the voting period (one concerning this very topic) that you may be interested in reading and voting on. Here they are:

Corporal Punishment http://www.debate.org...

Everyone Has Faith http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:58:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 2:28:25 AM, Axiom wrote:
I've always marvelled at how much pleasure some outspoken atheists seem to derive from constantly bashing Christians by calling them 'Stupid,' 'Irrational' or 'Ignorant.'
The primary reason for such assertions usually boils down to a matter of faith. These handful of atheists seem to claim that Christians reject logic in favor of faith and therefore are irrational.
I don't dispute that Christians have faith. Nor do I dispute that faith is belief in something without evidence or proof.
What I do say is that calling Christians 'stupid' 'irrational' or 'ignorant' for having faith is hypocritical. Why? Because all atheists also have faith--or forgo the belief in the unproven for good-ol-fashioned ignorance. (I'll bury the lead for a second more.)
I'd contend that all humans have faith in something, but then again I am a strong advocate of the Munchhausen Trilemma. I, and it, assert that no one can prove anything ever without resorting to a logical fallacy or an axiom (core belief that is assumed true 'because it...')
So why do I say atheists either embrace faith or ignorance themselves? It comes back to the question that every atheist is sick of hearing: "Where did anything come from?"
An atheist may purport the authenticity of the Big Bang Theory. (Many christians adopt this view as well and simply add God as a catalyst.) However, one must ask what was the catalyst for the Big Bang Theory? What was the origin of original matter? Where did it come from? What caused/created it?
An Atheist has two options: he/she can either claim 1. It was always there (faith-based axiom plus it raises the whole problem of infinite things being incapable of ariving at a specific point in time such as 'the big bang') or 2. Say that they don't know. (Ignorance. Not ignorance by choice, but ignorance all the same. Adding 'yet' to the end of that sentence doesn't change the ignorance.)
So are Christians Ignorant? Yes. Irrational? They have faith... so a tentative yes. Stupid? Not all.
But Atheists are also either ignorant or irrational (They either don't know or have faith.)

I guess all of this is to say, I am so tired of Atheists and Christians constantly resorting to name-calling and bashing. It's petty. It's also entirely exhausting to behold.

Anyway, do you guys agree with my argument? Disagree? Why? Is there a third option an atheist may choose for the origin of matter/universe? I'd love to hear it. While you're at it, I have two debates in the voting period (one concerning this very topic) that you may be interested in reading and voting on. Here they are:

Corporal Punishment http://www.debate.org...


Everyone Has Faith http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: This goes in the religious section.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:59:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 2:28:25 AM, Axiom wrote:
I've always marvelled at how much pleasure some outspoken atheists seem to derive from constantly bashing Christians by calling them 'Stupid,' 'Irrational' or 'Ignorant.'
The primary reason for such assertions usually boils down to a matter of faith. These handful of atheists seem to claim that Christians reject logic in favor of faith and therefore are irrational.
I don't dispute that Christians have faith. Nor do I dispute that faith is belief in something without evidence or proof.
What I do say is that calling Christians 'stupid' 'irrational' or 'ignorant' for having faith is hypocritical. Why? Because all atheists also have faith--or forgo the belief in the unproven for good-ol-fashioned ignorance. (I'll bury the lead for a second more.)
I'd contend that all humans have faith in something, but then again I am a strong advocate of the Munchhausen Trilemma. I, and it, assert that no one can prove anything ever without resorting to a logical fallacy or an axiom (core belief that is assumed true 'because it...')
So why do I say atheists either embrace faith or ignorance themselves? It comes back to the question that every atheist is sick of hearing: "Where did anything come from?"
An atheist may purport the authenticity of the Big Bang Theory. (Many christians adopt this view as well and simply add God as a catalyst.) However, one must ask what was the catalyst for the Big Bang Theory? What was the origin of original matter? Where did it come from? What caused/created it?
An Atheist has two options: he/she can either claim 1. It was always there (faith-based axiom plus it raises the whole problem of infinite things being incapable of ariving at a specific point in time such as 'the big bang') or 2. Say that they don't know. (Ignorance. Not ignorance by choice, but ignorance all the same. Adding 'yet' to the end of that sentence doesn't change the ignorance.)
So are Christians Ignorant? Yes. Irrational? They have faith... so a tentative yes. Stupid? Not all.
But Atheists are also either ignorant or irrational (They either don't know or have faith.)

I guess all of this is to say, I am so tired of Atheists and Christians constantly resorting to name-calling and bashing. It's petty. It's also entirely exhausting to behold.

Anyway, do you guys agree with my argument? Disagree? Why? Is there a third option an atheist may choose for the origin of matter/universe? I'd love to hear it. While you're at it, I have two debates in the voting period (one concerning this very topic) that you may be interested in reading and voting on. Here they are:

Corporal Punishment http://www.debate.org...


Everyone Has Faith http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: You can;t have faith in what does not exist you do. Because non-existence is not there to have faith in. GO away!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:05:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think this can go in either Philosophy or religion. I chose philosophy since I'm petty and try to avoid religions. I am addressing 'circular reasoning,' 'axioms' 'begging the question' 'the Munchhaussen Trilemma.' etc... I feel that the philosophical aspects to my post outweigh the religious ones.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:11:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The Fool: You can;t have faith in what does not exist you do. Because non-existence is not there to have faith in. GO away!."

I'm not entirely sure what your first sentence says, so I can't commentate on the second. And due to the extreme politeness of your request I most certainly will consider if I'll, 'go away.'
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:16:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 3:11:56 AM, Axiom wrote:

The Fool:
You can't have faith in what does not exist to you. Because non-existence is not there to have faith in.

I'm not entirely sure what your first sentence says, so I can't commentate on the second. And due to the extreme politeness of your request I most certainly will consider if I'll, 'go away.'

The Fool: what part of this is philosophical?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:18:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Your whole arguement is rude .. and irrational.

Do you think what exist, is non-existence? If yes its not rational. Its a contradiction.
That is why you should be in the religious section with your people.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:21:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: You will have a much better time there..

Try and set up a rational argument for God I will knock it down with ease.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:38:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have already conceded that Christians are irrational. My contention is that atheists are also. Because they also have faith or have a belief system based on ignorance. I think you should spend more time reading what I say and less time adopting this 'facade' or character you're trying to present.

"What part of this is philosophical."
I am simply pursuing wisdom. (Add the entirety of the philosophical doctrine I present in my argument and I think you can say that I wasn't wrong in putting this in this section. Which I'm honestly not going to bicker over. If this need be move, then those with the authority to do so shall move it.)

"Your people." You don't know what my people are. You're making an assumption and seem to be making a hefty few of them.

"Do you think what exist, is non-existence? " Not only do you misinterpret, but you misrepresent. I said nothing of the sort. I have conceded the irrationality of Christianity, but am contending that atheism is equally irrational.

"Try and set up a rational argument for God I will knock it down with ease." --The guise of a braggart does not become a fool--

Why do you feel it necessary to attack me? I am presenting a philosophical theory that I'd love to hear someone refute or contend. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes. Don't engage in ad hominem. Take the theory for the theory's sake and be a wise philosopher by putting your base assumptions and stereotypes aside. If you could point out (specifically) which part of my argument you have a problem with, I'd be happy to defend or concede the subject of your objection.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:53:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.

Notice, for a start, that "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. Notice that any claim can be transformed into a negative by a little rephrasing—most obviously, by negating the claim and then negating it again. "I exist" is logically equivalent to "I do not not exist," which is a negative. Yet here is a negative it seems I might perhaps be able to prove (in the style of Descartes—I think, therefore I do not not exist!)" (http://www.psychologytoday.com...)

I've read some of your forum posts. You seem to enjoy using the archaic, "You can't prove a negative," theory a lot. From what I was able to grasp between your insults and straw-men here was that you were saying a similiar thing about God. (Once again I was not trying to argue for the rationalization of God.) But I felt it only just to point out that your reason for dismissing evidence of a god (The theory that you can't prove a negative) has been debunked.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:20:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 3:38:19 AM, Axiom wrote:
I have already conceded that Christians are irrational. My contention is that atheists are also. Because they also have faith or have a belief system based on ignorance.

Axiom :I think you should spend more time reading what I say and less time adopting this 'facade' or character you're trying to present.

The Fool: Who cares what you think. What can you demonstrat via logical argument. if nothing. then Move along sir. . I read your argument ANd I refuted it that easy . with a fatal blow. See below.

"What part of this is philosophical."

Axiom:: I am simply pursuing wisdom. (Add the entirety of the philosophical doctrine I present in my argument and I think you can say that I wasn't wrong in putting this in this section. Which I'm honestly not going to bicker over. If this need be move, then those with the authority to do so shall move it.)

The Fool: No theologins are liers who;s only argue to prove god They have not made one positive progrees for the 2000 years the have been around.

Axiom : "Your people." You don't know what my people are. You're making an assumption and seem to be making a hefty few of them.

The Fool: I made an inductive judgement by your argument. If you are not a Thiest then I was mistaken If you are then Shut the fvch up!

Axiom : "Do you think what exist, is non-existence? " Not only do you misinterpret, but you misrepresent.

The Fool: I didn't attempt to interprete you argument I nipped it in the bud (false straman call)

Axiom :I said nothing of the sort. I have conceded the irrationality of Christianity, but am contending that atheism is equally irrational.

The Fool: And you were refuted faster then you think. Just in the wrong forum at the wrong time. With the Wrong n*gga. to Fvck with.

Axiom : "Try and set up a rational argument for God I will knock it down with ease." --The guise of a braggart does not become a fool--

The Fool: Demonstration???? (bold assumption fallacy)

Axiom: Why do you feel it necessary to attack me?

The Fool: Just telling where you will be best appreciated.

Axiom:I am presenting a philosophical theory that I'd love to hear someone refute or contend

The Fool: I did it so fast and you didnt' even notice. lol

1. Argument from existence:
P1 What is IS!
P2 And what is not does not exist.
C1 therefore there is only existence.

Therefore what does not exist to somebody cannot be a subject/object of faith.
So non-religious/non-ideological Athiest Don't have subject/object.
Q.E.D! move along sir.

Axiom:. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes.

The Fool: You just took a zigg when you should have zagged.

Axiom: Don't engage in ad hominem.

The Fool: Demonstration ??? (bold assumption fallacy)

Axiom: Take the theory for the theory's sake and be a wise philosopher by putting your base assumptions and stereotypes aside.

The Fool: Demonstration???????? (bold assumption fallacy)

Axiom: If you could point out (specifically) which part of my argument you have a problem with, I'd be happy to defend or concede the subject of your objection.

The Fool: Been there done that. I said it you should go in the religious section because that is where such athiest vs theist arguments take place here. Do you see those here???? Not that much.

Your argument what that athiest was the same:
The Fool: but atheist is not even a group, there are religiious atheist and ideological atheist, and scientology does have a God. And many people are of nethier but take a skeptical philosophy, or they take a Scientific stance. So your argument is a hasty over generalization that they all are just as rational.
Q.E.D. again. .. That 2 for 0 It will be easier there for you. And you will learn to evade me. In so far as I fight for the Good in itself.

Stay away from me with that sh!t. If you want to keep your beliefs safe. But if you are for the Good and our not mentally corrupted then you may have a change to going THe Good I will turn your world up site. down. But you will learn to most from me here.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:24:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I hope you are not appealing to authory I will make quick work of that. Go you see your people.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:30:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: There are only relative negatives to a positive but the opposite to absolute existence is non-existence. You can still take the absolute value of the negative and get and absolute value.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:34:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 3:53:31 AM, Axiom wrote:
"As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.

Notice, for a start, that "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. Notice that any claim can be transformed into a negative by a little rephrasing—most obviously, by negating the claim and then negating it again. "I exist" is logically equivalent to "I do not not exist," which is a negative. Yet here is a negative it seems I might perhaps be able to prove (in the style of Descartes—I think, therefore I do not not exist!)" (http://www.psychologytoday.com...)

I've read some of your forum posts. You seem to enjoy using the archaic, "You can't prove a negative," theory a lot. From what I was able to grasp between your insults and straw-men here was that you were saying a similiar thing about God. (Once again I was not trying to argue for the rationalization of God.) But I felt it only just to point out that your reason for dismissing evidence of a god (The theory that you can't prove a negative) has been debunked.

The FoolL I will bitch slap psychology to day on logic. (false appeal to authority)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 9:08:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 4:20:31 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/28/2012 3:38:19 AM, Axiom wrote:
I have already conceded that Christians are irrational. My contention is that atheists are also. Because they also have faith or have a belief system based on ignorance.

Axiom :I think you should spend more time reading what I say and less time adopting this 'facade' or character you're trying to present.

The Fool: Who cares what you think. What can you demonstrat via logical argument. if nothing. then Move along sir. . I read your argument ANd I refuted it that easy . with a fatal blow. See below.

"What part of this is philosophical."

Axiom:: I am simply pursuing wisdom. (Add the entirety of the philosophical doctrine I present in my argument and I think you can say that I wasn't wrong in putting this in this section. Which I'm honestly not going to bicker over. If this need be move, then those with the authority to do so shall move it.)

The Fool: No theologins are liers who;s only argue to prove god They have not made one positive progrees for the 2000 years the have been around.

Axiom : "Your people." You don't know what my people are. You're making an assumption and seem to be making a hefty few of them.

The Fool: I made an inductive judgement by your argument. If you are not a Thiest then I was mistaken If you are then Shut the fvch up!

Axiom : "Do you think what exist, is non-existence? " Not only do you misinterpret, but you misrepresent.

The Fool: I didn't attempt to interprete you argument I nipped it in the bud (false straman call)

Axiom :I said nothing of the sort. I have conceded the irrationality of Christianity, but am contending that atheism is equally irrational.

The Fool: And you were refuted faster then you think. Just in the wrong forum at the wrong time. With the Wrong n*gga. to Fvck with.

Axiom : "Try and set up a rational argument for God I will knock it down with ease." --The guise of a braggart does not become a fool--

The Fool: Demonstration???? (bold assumption fallacy)

Axiom: Why do you feel it necessary to attack me?

The Fool: Just telling where you will be best appreciated.

Axiom:I am presenting a philosophical theory that I'd love to hear someone refute or contend

The Fool: I did it so fast and you didnt' even notice. lol

1. Argument from existence:
P1 What is IS!
P2 And what is not does not exist.
C1 therefore there is only existence.

Therefore what does not exist to somebody cannot be a subject/object of faith.
So non-religious/non-ideological Athiest Don't have subject/object.
Q.E.D! move along sir.

Axiom:. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes.

The Fool: You just took a zigg when you should have zagged.

Axiom: Don't engage in ad hominem.

The Fool: Demonstration ??? (bold assumption fallacy)

Axiom: Take the theory for the theory's sake and be a wise philosopher by putting your base assumptions and stereotypes aside.

The Fool: Demonstration???????? (bold assumption fallacy)

Axiom: If you could point out (specifically) which part of my argument you have a problem with, I'd be happy to defend or concede the subject of your objection.


The Fool: Been there done that. I said it you should go in the religious section because that is where such athiest vs theist arguments take place here. Do you see those here???? Not that much.

Your argument what that athiest was the same:
The Fool: but atheist is not even a group, there are religiious atheist and ideological atheist, and scientology does have a God. And many people are of nethier but take a skeptical philosophy, or they take a Scientific stance. So your argument is a hasty over generalization that they all are just as rational.
Q.E.D. again. .. That 2 for 0 It will be easier there for you. And you will learn to evade me. In so far as I fight for the Good in itself.

Stay away from me with that sh!t. If you want to keep your beliefs safe. But if you are for the Good and our not mentally corrupted then you may have a change to going THe Good I will turn your world up site. down. But you will learn to most from me here.

The Fool Strikes Again! I love it!
Tsar of DDO
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 12:11:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The Fool: Who cares what you think. What can you demonstrat via logical argument. if nothing. then Move along sir. . I read your argument ANd I refuted it that easy . with a fatal blow. See below."

Once again, I have already provided my logical argument. Once again, The Fool is assuming I'm a Theist and is attacking something that was never even said based on a hasty assumption about an argument that he assumes will arise if we continue this vein of thought. I conceded that Christians can't be rational in their belief in god. Unfortunately, my opponent continues to charge forward like a mule with blinders on by attacking something I conceded in my post before he even said anything.

"The Fool: No theologins are liers who;s only argue to prove god They have not made one positive progrees for the 2000 years the have been around."

Now who is making a bold assumption fallacy?

"The Fool: I made an inductive judgement by your argument. If you are not a Thiest then I was mistaken If you are then Shut the fvch up!"

That's very mature. And once again, this is ad hominem. My argument stands weather or not I am a Theist.

"The Fool: I didn't attempt to interprete you argument I nipped it in the bud (false straman call)"

Once again, assuming what the point of my debate was without actually reading the debate. I am NOT arguing that Christians are rational. I conclude they are not. So all of this is pointless attacks on a previously conceded point.

"The Fool: And you were refuted faster then you think. Just in the wrong forum at the wrong time. With the Wrong n*gga. to Fvck with."

I was not refuted. Setting up a straw man of a theory and then knocking it down multiple times may feel satisfying, but it gives you the intellectual credit of a moth.

"The Fool: I did it so fast and you didnt' even notice. lol

1. Argument from existence:
P1 What is IS!
P2 And what is not does not exist.
C1 therefore there is only existence.

Therefore what does not exist to somebody cannot be a subject/object of faith.
So non-religious/non-ideological Athiest Don't have subject/object.
Q.E.D! move along sir."

Once again the Fool is attacking the Christian belief in God. Once again, I have already conceded that point. He just keeps attacking something that was never in my initial argument in the first place. I have already stated that Christians are irrational.

"athiest vs theist arguments "
This is not an atheist vs. theist argument. This is a 'me' vs. atheists and theists argument, speaking on behalf of the entire world that all humans inevitably have faith or are ignorant.
Firstly note the intentional use of he word 'may' in my argument saying "atheists may purport the Big Bang Theory.' In the end I was providing a single example of faith that is deemed rational by most people. I said it was not and went on to prove why. And you continue to avoid my assertions and continue to attack arguments I never even made. I'll say this one last time: I am not defending Christians.

I'm afraid you have a very tenuous grasp on the logical fallacies you continued to appeal to and you continue to engage in the very things you dismiss. (This is called a conclusion. Not a bold assumption fallacy. It is derived from the previously argued content and written out in character form. It isn't expected to defend already stated arguments in every paragraph you refer to them.)

"The Fool Strikes Again! I love it!"

With the ferocity of a butterfly and the swiftness of a slug. Don't egg on poor reasoning and philosophical misconduct.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:24:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 12:11:24 PM, Axiom wrote:
"The Fool: Who cares what you think. What can you demonstrat via logical argument. if nothing. then Move along sir. . I read your argument ANd I refuted it that easy . with a fatal blow. See below."

Once again, I have already provided my logical argument.

The Fool: Where is it?

Once again, The Fool is assuming I'm a Theist and is attacking something that was never even said based on a hasty assumption about an argument that he assumes will arise if we continue this vein of thought.

The Fool: Who are you talking too? Said by induction. That is not an bold assumption.

I conceded that Christians can't be rational in their belief in god. Unfortunately, my opponent continues to charge forward like a mule with blinders on by attacking something I conceded in my post before he even said anything.

The Fool: I didn'tn say they were not. An opponent where is my opponent. who are you preaching to. ??? that is for another section.


The Fool: No theologins are liers who;s only argue to prove god They have not made one positive progrees for the 2000 years the have been around."

Now who is making a bold assumption fallacy?

The Fool: Every theologins arguement has been shot down by philosophers of the Pass. So give me an example of the new uselfull knowlede that they have had.(bold assertion fallacy)

"The Fool: I made an inductive judgement by your argument. If you are not a Thiest then I was mistaken If you are then Shut the fvch up!"

That's very mature. And once again, this is ad hominem. My argument stands weather or not I am a Theist.

The Fool: Ad hominem is when you insult and opponent, which you are not, in favor of an argument. So what is you claim??(BoF)

"The Fool: I didn't attempt to interprete you argument I nipped it in the bud (false straman call)"

Once again, assuming what the point of my debate was without actually reading the debate.

The Fool: I don;t care about you debate just copy and past , and be done with it.

I am NOT arguing that Christians are rational. I conclude they are not. So all of this is pointless attacks on a previously conceded point.

The Fool: And you were refuted faster then you think. Just in the wrong forum at the wrong time. With the Wrong n*gga. to Fvck with." Who said you were arguing that Christians were rationa. (strawman fallacy)

I was not refuted.

The Fool: You better recognize .. lol

Setting up a straw man of a theory and then knocking it down multiple times may feel satisfying, but it gives you the intellectual credit of a moth.

The Fool: I use your qoutes. (BAF)

"The Fool: I did it so fast and you didnt' even notice. lol

1. Argument from existence:
P1 What is IS!
P2 And what is not does not exist.
C1 therefore there is only existence.

Therefore what does not exist to somebody cannot be a subject/object of faith.
So non-religious/non-ideological Athiest Don't have subject/object.
Q.E.D! move along sir."

Once again the Fool is attacking the Christian belief in God. Once again, I have already conceded that point. He just keeps attacking something that was never in my initial argument in the first place. I have already stated that Christians are irrational.

"athiest vs theist arguments "
This is not an atheist vs. theist argument. T

The Fool: It doesn;t matter I refuted you claim that they are the same... So what is the now topic?

his is a 'me' vs. atheists and theists argument, speaking on behalf of the entire world that all humans inevitably have faith or are ignorant.

The Fool: Refuted so what do you have left. So you can go be with your people.

Firstly note the intentional use of he word 'may' in my argument saying "atheists may purport the Big Bang Theory.' In the end I was providing a single example of faith that is deemed rational by most people. I said it was not and went on to prove why. And you continue to avoid my assertions and continue to attack arguments I never even made.

The Fool: "One bold assertion is as good as the next," Hegel..

I'll say this one last time: I am not defending Christians.

The Fool: You can say it 1000 times it won't effect anythingn. You have been Fooled. I should that they both dont' have faith. Regardless of what you are saying(BAF)

I'm afraid you have a very tenuous grasp on the logical fallacies you continued to appeal to and you continue to engage in the very things you dismiss.

The Fool: Well when you are able to provide arguments/demonstration then what you say will matter. Until then (BAF)

(This is called a conclusion. Not a bold assumption fallacy. It is derived from the previously argued content and written out in character form.

The Fool: well lets hope your sake its not about Athiest having faith in the same why Christians do because there would be nothing left of it. .

It isn't expected to defend already stated arguments in every paragraph you refer to them.)

The Fool: Well show what you got left.

With the ferocity of a butterfly and the swiftness of a slug. Don't egg on poor reasoning and philosophical misconduct.

The Fool: One bold assumption is as good as the next. If you think you have still some defenses. THen just write your arguement in a post here on its. Own nice and clean. And we will see what you got left.

"The Fool Strikes Again! I love it!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:32:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool and The Axiom.

The Fool: My argument so far.

1. Argument from existence and faith
P1 what is IS!
P2 and what is not does not exist.
C1 therefore there is only existence.

Therefore what does not exist to somebody cannot be a subject/object of faith.
So non-religious/non-ideological Atheist can't have an object of pure faith.
Q.E.D!

2. Argument from diversity of Atheist:
Atheist is not even a group, there are religious atheist and ideological atheist, and scientology does not have a Gods. And many people are of nether but take a sceptical philosophy, or they take a scientific stance. So your argument is a hasty over generalization that they all are just as rational.
Q.E.D.

So place you argument below and only your argument NO EXTRA COMMENTS ON THIS PAGE. put them on another post. And lets finish these up.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 6:27:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 4:32:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool and The Axiom.

The Fool: My argument so far.

1. Argument from existence and faith
P1 what is IS!
P2 and what is not does not exist.
C1 therefore there is only existence.

Therefore what does not exist to somebody cannot be a subject/object of faith.
So non-religious/non-ideological Atheist can't have an object of pure faith.
Q.E.D!

2. Argument from diversity of Atheist:
Atheist is not even a group, there are religious atheist and ideological atheist, and scientology does not have a Gods. And many people are of nether but take a sceptical philosophy, or they take a scientific stance. So your argument is a hasty over generalization that they all are just as rational.
Q.E.D.

So place you argument below and only your argument NO EXTRA COMMENTS ON THIS PAGE. put them on another post. And lets finish these up.

Well, firstly I gave a single example of those who presume to call themselves 'rational' atheists. I'm not going to pick and choose through every single religion in the world to point out exactly what their faith or ignorance is. I am giving the theorom which can be applied by anyone to those situations. The Munchhaussen Trilemma is where I rest my case. We all have faith or are ignorant.

And secondly, I am saying they either have 'faith' or are 'ignorant.' Not and. Saying 'I don't know" is a statement of ignorance. And also, you are providing a completely new case without countering my assertions. You are raising a new logical theory (argument from existence) which my argument ties in with nicely. You appaer to be reading the title of my post without paying attention to the content.

Btw, the cosmological argument (Argument from existence) is used by theologians and philosophers to defend Christianity. Are you saying, that is what I am saying? Or are you saying that is the point you're trying to make, drawing the conclusion there is only existence. (Let me point out that if you're saying the universe is infinite, that presents an entire plethora of logical inconsistancies itself. ie. how do you arrive at a point in time, if you have unlimited points in time before it. You can't. It logically doesn't follow.)

"So non-religious/non-ideological Atheist can't have an object of pure faith." I agree with everything you say before this. I say they can, though I'd need you to define 'pure' faith.
If you are saying that the universe had a beggining, but you don't or can't know, I say that proves my case completely. As of yet you are simply saying that you've refuted everything, without refuting anything. You are using terms of logical fallacy when it suits you (hypocritcally.) And you put far too much stock in how much you assume I respect you or your debating methods. I've read some of your debates and I find that insults, and googling 'logical fallacies' only to copy paste them in a debate, as poor sportsmanship.

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you anymore because I don't want to engage in antagonistic bickering any more than I already have. I prefer rational discourse between gentlemen or ladies who share a mutual respect for the human mind, not disdain and contempt for someone who puports something they disagree with. Have a good day and may fortune follow you wherever you go.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 6:45:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 6:27:39 PM, Axiom wrote:
At 7/28/2012 4:32:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool and The Axiom.

The Fool: My argument so far.

1. Argument from existence and faith
P1 what is IS!
P2 and what is not does not exist.
C1 therefore there is only existence.

Therefore what does not exist to somebody cannot be a subject/object of faith.
So non-religious/non-ideological Atheist can't have an object of pure faith.
Q.E.D!

2. Argument from diversity of Atheist:
Atheist is not even a group, there are religious atheist and ideological atheist, and scientology does not have a Gods. And many people are of nether but take a sceptical philosophy, or they take a scientific stance. So your argument is a hasty over generalization that they all are just as rational.
Q.E.D.

So place you argument below and only your argument NO EXTRA COMMENTS ON THIS PAGE. put them on another post. And lets finish these up.

Well, firstly I gave a single example of those who presume to call themselves 'rational' atheists. I'm not going to pick and choose through every single religion in the world to point out exactly what their faith or ignorance is. I am giving the theorom which can be applied by anyone to those situations. The Munchhaussen Trilemma is where I rest my case. We all have faith or are ignorant.

And secondly, I am saying they either have 'faith' or are 'ignorant.' Not and. Saying 'I don't know" is a statement of ignorance. And also, you are providing a completely new case without countering my assertions. You are raising a new logical theory (argument from existence) which my argument ties in with nicely. You appaer to be reading the title of my post without paying attention to the content.

Btw, the cosmological argument (Argument from existence) is used by theologians and philosophers to defend Christianity. Are you saying, that is what I am saying? Or are you saying that is the point you're trying to make, drawing the conclusion there is only existence. (Let me point out that if you're saying the universe is infinite, that presents an entire plethora of logical inconsistancies itself. ie. how do you arrive at a point in time, if you have unlimited points in time before it. You can't. It logically doesn't follow.)

"So non-religious/non-ideological Atheist can't have an object of pure faith." I agree with everything you say before this. I say they can, though I'd need you to define 'pure' faith.
If you are saying that the universe had a beggining, but you don't or can't know, I say that proves my case completely. As of yet you are simply saying that you've refuted everything, without refuting anything. You are using terms of logical fallacy when it suits you (hypocritcally.) And you put far too much stock in how much you assume I respect you or your debating methods. I've read some of your debates and I find that insults, and googling 'logical fallacies' only to copy paste them in a debate, as poor sportsmanship.

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you anymore because I don't want to engage in antagonistic bickering any more than I already have. I prefer rational discourse between gentlemen or ladies who share a mutual respect for the human mind, not disdain and contempt for someone who puports something they disagree with. Have a good day and may fortune follow you wherever you go.

The Fool: who cares about this just place you arguments. If you are sure of yourself just place your argument. They rest is all talk. I can challenge you do a debate if you are so sure of yourself.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 6:47:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 4:32:23 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool and The Axiom.

The Fool: My argument so far.

1. Argument from existence and faith
P1 what is IS!
P2 and what is not does not exist.
C1 therefore there is only existence.

Therefore what does not exist to somebody cannot be a subject/object of faith.
So non-religious/non-ideological Atheist can't have an object of pure faith.
Q.E.D!

2. Argument from diversity of Atheist:
Atheist is not even a group, there are religious atheist and ideological atheist, and scientology does not have a Gods. And many people are of nether but take a sceptical philosophy, or they take a scientific stance. So your argument is a hasty over generalization that they all are just as rational.
Q.E.D.

So place you argument below and only your argument NO EXTRA COMMENTS ON THIS PAGE. put them on another post. And lets finish these up.

Talk is cheap, give your arguments? Support yourself. or not. If not then you lose. a buh Bye!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:32:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 6:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/28/2012 6:27:39 PM, Axiom wrote:

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you anymore because I don't want to engage in antagonistic bickering any more than I already have. I prefer rational discourse between gentlemen or ladies who share a mutual respect for the human mind, not disdain and contempt for someone who puports something they disagree with. Have a good day and may fortune follow you wherever you go.

The Fool: who cares about this just place you arguments. If you are sure of yourself just place your argument. They rest is all talk. I can challenge you do a debate if you are so sure of yourself.

Ruh roh Axiom, now you've gone and done it, you better watch out because he only loses debates 80% of the time.

Scary huh?

And whatever you do, don't let him challenge you to a spelling bee, he can correctly spell almost ten words.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:33:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Thats is right express a fallacy of appealing to popularity. Yet not being up to come up of any rational defend ever.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:35:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: My first langauge is French, And I speak English, and some latin as well. The french is what makes this funnier.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:40:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 10:32:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/28/2012 6:45:09 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/28/2012 6:27:39 PM, Axiom wrote:

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this with you anymore because I don't want to engage in antagonistic bickering any more than I already have. I prefer rational discourse between gentlemen or ladies who share a mutual respect for the human mind, not disdain and contempt for someone who puports something they disagree with. Have a good day and may fortune follow you wherever you go.

The Fool: who cares about this just place you arguments. If you are sure of yourself just place your argument. They rest is all talk. I can challenge you do a debate if you are so sure of yourself.

Ruh roh Axiom, now you've gone and done it, you better watch out because he only loses debates 80% of the time.

Scary huh?

And whatever you do, don't let him challenge you to a spelling bee, he can correctly spell almost ten words.

The Fool: why don't you challenge me on something <(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 10:42:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: a Proof of God maybe??? lol
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL