Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Atheists and dishonest argumentation

skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 5:24:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
DDO has its fill of dishonest atheists that perpetuate useless arguments that simply have failed logic with obvious reasoning that has been dismissed and yet atheists refuse to publicly retract or outright admit their fallacious nonsense was just that, nonsense.
Let's start with the ignorant use of modus ponens by FKKZe..... He was especially proud of this turd, but suffice to say you will not see him admit anyhwere the argument violated the rules of logic. He will instead attempt to assassinate the character of the person who exposed his piece of garbage known as.......
(btw, I'm the one who outed this crap and not one atheist on this site even alludes to the fact that it's a personal opinion fallacy because it violated the rules in regards to subject matter of modus ponens. Or what I like to call modus bullllshitttedness.....I'm joking lighten up people.)

,..............The argument from externalism...
If externalism is true, then the universe wasn't created
Eternaliam is true
Therefore the universe wasn't created
God can exist if and only if God is the creator of the universe
Therefore God doesn't exist.

This argument was the reflection of ignorance by an under educated logic student that hadn't quite reached the part in logic where modus ponens is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths.
Eternaliam is true , .....lmfao isn't remotely an agreed upon truth
The universe created or not created, ......once again, not an agreed upon truth
God needing to exist if the universe has "detectable proof of creation" ....not an agreed upon truth.
God existing or not existing .....not an agreed upon truth

And to add insult to injury tjrectics was so mesmerized by this blatant fallacious piece of crap he's been running to every site on the internet and repeating this eternaliam nonsense. It's a shame. He's gonna run into someone who will recognize the folly of his misuse of modus ponens and he's gonna have to admit his ignorance of the "if" "then" format and apologize for spreading this garbage around the net. Btw Im actually joking. I have no idea what tjrectics is doing much less if I'm even spelling his handle correctly. After all, why would I care? We all are bored enough to waste time...as this was. But it's gonna get read.....you can bet on it.

Now let's see the post by FKKZe admitting the eternaliam garbage was just that, useless garbage. I'm betting he's too much of a coward and an egomaniac to post a retraction.
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 6:17:58 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 5:24:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
DDO has its fill of dishonest atheists that perpetuate useless arguments that simply have failed logic with obvious reasoning that has been dismissed and yet atheists refuse to publicly retract or outright admit their fallacious nonsense was just that, nonsense.
Let's start with the ignorant use of modus ponens by FKKZe..... He was especially proud of this turd, but suffice to say you will not see him admit anyhwere the argument violated the rules of logic. He will instead attempt to assassinate the character of the person who exposed his piece of garbage known as.......
(btw, I'm the one who outed this crap and not one atheist on this site even alludes to the fact that it's a personal opinion fallacy because it violated the rules in regards to subject matter of modus ponens. Or what I like to call modus bullllshitttedness.....I'm joking lighten up people.)

,..............The argument from externalism...
If externalism is true, then the universe wasn't created
Eternaliam is true
Therefore the universe wasn't created
God can exist if and only if God is the creator of the universe
Therefore God doesn't exist.

This argument was the reflection of ignorance by an under educated logic student that hadn't quite reached the part in logic where modus ponens is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths.
Eternaliam is true , .....lmfao isn't remotely an agreed upon truth
The universe created or not created, ......once again, not an agreed upon truth
God needing to exist if the universe has "detectable proof of creation" ....not an agreed upon truth.
God existing or not existing .....not an agreed upon truth

And to add insult to injury tjrectics was so mesmerized by this blatant fallacious piece of crap he's been running to every site on the internet and repeating this eternaliam nonsense. It's a shame. He's gonna run into someone who will recognize the folly of his misuse of modus ponens and he's gonna have to admit his ignorance of the "if" "then" format and apologize for spreading this garbage around the net. Btw Im actually joking. I have no idea what tjrectics is doing much less if I'm even spelling his handle correctly. After all, why would I care? We all are bored enough to waste time...as this was. But it's gonna get read.....you can bet on it.

Now let's see the post by FKKZe admitting the eternaliam garbage was just that, useless garbage. I'm betting he's too much of a coward and an egomaniac to post a retraction.

I am not sure how serious you are due to the fact you keep on mentioning that you are joking, but for now I'll take it as you trying to make a valid point. There are two points I want to mention:

1) Just a small remark, I don't want to get into some kind of eternalism debate. I don't see what is wrong with using modus ponens. The argument states:
If A, then B
A, therefore B
If B, then not C
A, therefore B, therefore not C

This is not a proof of "not C", but it shows if one can prove A then one can simultaneously disprove C. The only thing missing is a proof for A.

2) If you want to convince people you are right, then it would be better to not appear hostile and insult them. If the truth is important to you then those who disagree with you are your greatest resource in finding truth. They are not your enemy, it's this kind of false thinking that gets people emotionally tied to their opinions to a degree they are no longer willing to change them. I am not accusing you of this, but there seems to be a strong indication that you might fall in that category.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 7:55:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.

There us no scientific 'proof' or thesis that demostrates God does not exist.

People have been 'educated' many falsities. Since higher education is often cinducted in secular atmosphere, it is more likely a loss of religiousity is due to conforming to culture or indoctrination.

You are no more 'evolved' than a human from 10,000 years ago. You are biologically identical. And 4,000 years ago those biologically identical human beings were educated at universities and schools as well.

The great thing is 100 years from now some arrogant college punk will talk about you as if you were a troglodyte.
janesix
Posts: 3,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 8:18:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Definitively? Let's see your proof that God doesn't exist.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 8:56:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 7:55:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.

There us no scientific 'proof' or thesis that demostrates God does not exist.

People have been 'educated' many falsities. Since higher education is often cinducted in secular atmosphere, it is more likely a loss of religiousity is due to conforming to culture or indoctrination.

You are no more 'evolved' than a human from 10,000 years ago. You are biologically identical. And 4,000 years ago those biologically identical human beings were educated at universities and schools as well.

The great thing is 100 years from now some arrogant college punk will talk about you as if you were a troglodyte.

You intolerant religious zealot
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 8:57:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 8:18:09 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Definitively? Let's see your proof that God doesn't exist.

Quite simply because math.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 10:08:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 8:56:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 7:55:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.

There us no scientific 'proof' or thesis that demostrates God does not exist.

People have been 'educated' many falsities. Since higher education is often cinducted in secular atmosphere, it is more likely a loss of religiousity is due to conforming to culture or indoctrination.

You are no more 'evolved' than a human from 10,000 years ago. You are biologically identical. And 4,000 years ago those biologically identical human beings were educated at universities and schools as well.

The great thing is 100 years from now some arrogant college punk will talk about you as if you were a troglodyte.

You intolerant religious zealot

Are you saying that because I rationally disagree with you? That makes you the bigot not me.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:18:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 10:08:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2016 8:56:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 7:55:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.

There us no scientific 'proof' or thesis that demostrates God does not exist.

People have been 'educated' many falsities. Since higher education is often cinducted in secular atmosphere, it is more likely a loss of religiousity is due to conforming to culture or indoctrination.

You are no more 'evolved' than a human from 10,000 years ago. You are biologically identical. And 4,000 years ago those biologically identical human beings were educated at universities and schools as well.

The great thing is 100 years from now some arrogant college punk will talk about you as if you were a troglodyte.

You intolerant religious zealot

Are you saying that because I rationally disagree with you? That makes you the bigot not me.

Yeah, I can't stand people disagreeing with me. Sorry, it gives me really bad panic attacks. It's a psychological condition. Please bear with me...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:44:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 7:55:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.

There us no scientific 'proof' or thesis that demostrates God does not exist.

People have been 'educated' many falsities. Since higher education is often cinducted in secular atmosphere, it is more likely a loss of religiousity is due to conforming to culture or indoctrination.

You are no more 'evolved' than a human from 10,000 years ago. You are biologically identical. And 4,000 years ago those biologically identical human beings were educated at universities and schools as well.

The great thing is 100 years from now some arrogant college punk will talk about you as if you were a troglodyte.
+1
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 2:54:43 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 5:24:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
DDO has its fill of dishonest atheists that perpetuate useless arguments that simply have failed logic with obvious reasoning that has been dismissed and yet atheists refuse to publicly retract or outright admit their fallacious nonsense was just that, nonsense.
Let's start with the ignorant use of modus ponens by FKKZe..... He was especially proud of this turd, but suffice to say you will not see him admit anyhwere the argument violated the rules of logic. He will instead attempt to assassinate the character of the person who exposed his piece of garbage known as.......
(btw, I'm the one who outed this crap and not one atheist on this site even alludes to the fact that it's a personal opinion fallacy because it violated the rules in regards to subject matter of modus ponens. Or what I like to call modus bullllshitttedness.....I'm joking lighten up people.)

,..............The argument from externalism...
If externalism is true, then the universe wasn't created
Eternaliam is true
Therefore the universe wasn't created
God can exist if and only if God is the creator of the universe
Therefore God doesn't exist.

This argument was the reflection of ignorance by an under educated logic student that hadn't quite reached the part in logic where modus ponens is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths.
Eternaliam is true , .....lmfao isn't remotely an agreed upon truth
The universe created or not created, ......once again, not an agreed upon truth
God needing to exist if the universe has "detectable proof of creation" ....not an agreed upon truth.
God existing or not existing .....not an agreed upon truth

And to add insult to injury tjrectics was so mesmerized by this blatant fallacious piece of crap he's been running to every site on the internet and repeating this eternaliam nonsense. It's a shame. He's gonna run into someone who will recognize the folly of his misuse of modus ponens and he's gonna have to admit his ignorance of the "if" "then" format and apologize for spreading this garbage around the net. Btw Im actually joking. I have no idea what tjrectics is doing much less if I'm even spelling his handle correctly. After all, why would I care? We all are bored enough to waste time...as this was. But it's gonna get read.....you can bet on it.

Now let's see the post by FKKZe admitting the eternaliam garbage was just that, useless garbage. I'm betting he's too much of a coward and an egomaniac to post a retraction.

With many people honesty is subjective as the facts they use are subjective. So in their mind they are honest.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 9:44:07 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 6:17:58 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 5/26/2016 5:24:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
DDO has its fill of dishonest atheists that perpetuate useless arguments that simply have failed logic with obvious reasoning that has been dismissed and yet atheists refuse to publicly retract or outright admit their fallacious nonsense was just that, nonsense.
Let's start with the ignorant use of modus ponens by FKKZe..... He was especially proud of this turd, but suffice to say you will not see him admit anyhwere the argument violated the rules of logic. He will instead attempt to assassinate the character of the person who exposed his piece of garbage known as.......
(btw, I'm the one who outed this crap and not one atheist on this site even alludes to the fact that it's a personal opinion fallacy because it violated the rules in regards to subject matter of modus ponens. Or what I like to call modus bullllshitttedness.....I'm joking lighten up people.)

,..............The argument from externalism...
If externalism is true, then the universe wasn't created
Eternaliam is true
Therefore the universe wasn't created
God can exist if and only if God is the creator of the universe
Therefore God doesn't exist.

This argument was the reflection of ignorance by an under educated logic student that hadn't quite reached the part in logic where modus ponens is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths.
Eternaliam is true , .....lmfao isn't remotely an agreed upon truth
The universe created or not created, ......once again, not an agreed upon truth
God needing to exist if the universe has "detectable proof of creation" ....not an agreed upon truth.
God existing or not existing .....not an agreed upon truth

And to add insult to injury tjrectics was so mesmerized by this blatant fallacious piece of crap he's been running to every site on the internet and repeating this eternaliam nonsense. It's a shame. He's gonna run into someone who will recognize the folly of his misuse of modus ponens and he's gonna have to admit his ignorance of the "if" "then" format and apologize for spreading this garbage around the net. Btw Im actually joking. I have no idea what tjrectics is doing much less if I'm even spelling his handle correctly. After all, why would I care? We all are bored enough to waste time...as this was. But it's gonna get read.....you can bet on it.

Now let's see the post by FKKZe admitting the eternaliam garbage was just that, useless garbage. I'm betting he's too much of a coward and an egomaniac to post a retraction.

I am not sure how serious you are due to the fact you keep on mentioning that you are joking, but for now I'll take it as you trying to make a valid point. There are two points I want to mention:

1) Just a small remark, I don't want to get into some kind of eternalism debate. I don't see what is wrong with using modus ponens. The argument states:
If A, then B
A, therefore B
If B, then not C
A, therefore B, therefore not C


Modus ponens is simple. It Is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths. None of which the externalism example consists of. If you don't know this then please use Google or whatever you have that's an educational resource and learn the rules instead of acting as if you "don't see any problem". It violates the rules of logic in regards to modus ponens by violating proper subject matter to be argued. My op is clear and it's not debatable, it's an actual rule of logic.
This is not a proof of "not C", but it shows if one can prove A then one can simultaneously disprove C. The only thing missing is a proof for A.

2) If you want to convince people you are right, then it would be better to not appear hostile and insult them. If the truth is important to you then those who disagree with you are your greatest resource in finding truth. They are not your enemy, it's this kind of false thinking that gets people emotionally tied to their opinions to a degree they are no longer willing to change them. I am not accusing you of this, but there seems to be a strong indication that you might fall in that category.
I don't have to convince educated people my OP is on point in regards to modus ponens...(emphatic) Period.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 9:50:22 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.
Not my point Tj. It's simply to point out that eternalism via modus ponens isn't following the stated rules bro. That's all im doing. The argument doesn't follow the stated rules in regards to an inference of a truth via arguing acknowledged truths. And I've seen a lot of what you post and admire the majority of it. That's why I wanted to point this out. I don't care was does or doesn't prove God, that's not my bag. I'll take any position if I see a hole that can be exploited or try to make a hole if I see a weakness. It's only fun to argue what you don't already think, at least half the time.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 11:44:55 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 2:54:43 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/26/2016 5:24:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
DDO has its fill of dishonest atheists that perpetuate useless arguments that simply have failed logic with obvious reasoning that has been dismissed and yet atheists refuse to publicly retract or outright admit their fallacious nonsense was just that, nonsense.
Let's start with the ignorant use of modus ponens by FKKZe..... He was especially proud of this turd, but suffice to say you will not see him admit anyhwere the argument violated the rules of logic. He will instead attempt to assassinate the character of the person who exposed his piece of garbage known as.......
(btw, I'm the one who outed this crap and not one atheist on this site even alludes to the fact that it's a personal opinion fallacy because it violated the rules in regards to subject matter of modus ponens. Or what I like to call modus bullllshitttedness.....I'm joking lighten up people.)

,..............The argument from externalism...
If externalism is true, then the universe wasn't created
Eternaliam is true
Therefore the universe wasn't created
God can exist if and only if God is the creator of the universe
Therefore God doesn't exist.

This argument was the reflection of ignorance by an under educated logic student that hadn't quite reached the part in logic where modus ponens is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths.
Eternaliam is true , .....lmfao isn't remotely an agreed upon truth
The universe created or not created, ......once again, not an agreed upon truth
God needing to exist if the universe has "detectable proof of creation" ....not an agreed upon truth.
God existing or not existing .....not an agreed upon truth

And to add insult to injury tjrectics was so mesmerized by this blatant fallacious piece of crap he's been running to every site on the internet and repeating this eternaliam nonsense. It's a shame. He's gonna run into someone who will recognize the folly of his misuse of modus ponens and he's gonna have to admit his ignorance of the "if" "then" format and apologize for spreading this garbage around the net. Btw Im actually joking. I have no idea what tjrectics is doing much less if I'm even spelling his handle correctly. After all, why would I care? We all are bored enough to waste time...as this was. But it's gonna get read.....you can bet on it.

Now let's see the post by FKKZe admitting the eternaliam garbage was just that, useless garbage. I'm betting he's too much of a coward and an egomaniac to post a retraction.

With many people honesty is subjective as the facts they use are subjective. So in their mind they are honest.
I agree. The rules governing subject matter proper for argumentation in the form of modus ponens isn't subjective, it's actual information set by Aristotelian approaches to logical arguments. But my title was purposely less abrasive than it could have been. My point is will the author of the argument from eternalism admit openly he misused modus ponens making his argument useless and fallacious or will he simply avoid public admission out of ego. I assume he hopes, if there are other examples he argued with modus ponens, that they will not also be outed as fallacious reasoning which might ruin his reputation as someone who claims to understand logic. He jumped the gun on what his freshman courses in logic taught him. Question is will he be honest enough to admit or run like a coward and hide because his little girl ego has been hurt. He's an arrogant punk, period. I'm just an obnoxious pain in the arse and contrarian. Lol
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 11:52:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.
Nice straw man. Like most who buy into an obnoxious idea of what constitutes religion you use the stats incorrectly to assume non religious means no religion. The stats are clear, non religious is on the rise, but the majority who answer with that distinction are simply stating they are anti organized religion. Not anti religious belief, as most say there is a God.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 12:27:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 11:52:29 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.
Nice straw man. Like most who buy into an obnoxious idea of what constitutes religion you use the stats incorrectly to assume non religious means no religion. The stats are clear, non religious is on the rise, but the majority who answer with that distinction are simply stating they are anti organized religion. Not anti religious belief, as most say there is a God.

Yeah man, but thats just, like, your opinion.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 2:56:17 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 12:27:30 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:52:29 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.
Nice straw man. Like most who buy into an obnoxious idea of what constitutes religion you use the stats incorrectly to assume non religious means no religion. The stats are clear, non religious is on the rise, but the majority who answer with that distinction are simply stating they are anti organized religion. Not anti religious belief, as most say there is a God.

Yeah man, but thats just, like, your opinion.
Non religious for the majority identify as God believers, they simply identify as non organized religous practitioners..that's a.fact, cuz you know, it's from what you site.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 5:55:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 2:56:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/27/2016 12:27:30 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/27/2016 11:52:29 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.
Nice straw man. Like most who buy into an obnoxious idea of what constitutes religion you use the stats incorrectly to assume non religious means no religion. The stats are clear, non religious is on the rise, but the majority who answer with that distinction are simply stating they are anti organized religion. Not anti religious belief, as most say there is a God.

Yeah man, but thats just, like, your opinion.
Non religious for the majority identify as God believers, they simply identify as non organized religous practitioners..that's a.fact, cuz you know, it's from what you site.

Uhhhhgggg I hate it when people on the internet make me look like an idiot.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 6:44:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 11:18:24 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 10:08:49 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2016 8:56:56 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 7:55:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2016 4:43:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:05:16 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Can't tell if you're trolling or not.

Well seriously, I mean, as people become more educated, there's a correlation with less religion. That doesn't mean religion is bad or that it isn't useful in some ways, just that most people believe in it because they're ignorant and superstitious and under-evolved.

There us no scientific 'proof' or thesis that demostrates God does not exist.

People have been 'educated' many falsities. Since higher education is often cinducted in secular atmosphere, it is more likely a loss of religiousity is due to conforming to culture or indoctrination.

You are no more 'evolved' than a human from 10,000 years ago. You are biologically identical. And 4,000 years ago those biologically identical human beings were educated at universities and schools as well.

The great thing is 100 years from now some arrogant college punk will talk about you as if you were a troglodyte.

You intolerant religious zealot

Are you saying that because I rationally disagree with you? That makes you the bigot not me.

Yeah, I can't stand people disagreeing with me. Sorry, it gives me really bad panic attacks. It's a psychological condition. Please bear with me...

DDO should be a safe space! Where no one can disagree with you. Religion IS A BRAIN DAMAGE! UPHOLD AYYTHEISM!!!!!!
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 8:58:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 9:44:07 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:17:58 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 5/26/2016 5:24:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
DDO has its fill of dishonest atheists that perpetuate useless arguments that simply have failed logic with obvious reasoning that has been dismissed and yet atheists refuse to publicly retract or outright admit their fallacious nonsense was just that, nonsense.
Let's start with the ignorant use of modus ponens by FKKZe..... He was especially proud of this turd, but suffice to say you will not see him admit anyhwere the argument violated the rules of logic. He will instead attempt to assassinate the character of the person who exposed his piece of garbage known as.......
(btw, I'm the one who outed this crap and not one atheist on this site even alludes to the fact that it's a personal opinion fallacy because it violated the rules in regards to subject matter of modus ponens. Or what I like to call modus bullllshitttedness.....I'm joking lighten up people.)

,..............The argument from externalism...
If externalism is true, then the universe wasn't created
Eternaliam is true
Therefore the universe wasn't created
God can exist if and only if God is the creator of the universe
Therefore God doesn't exist.

This argument was the reflection of ignorance by an under educated logic student that hadn't quite reached the part in logic where modus ponens is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths.
Eternaliam is true , .....lmfao isn't remotely an agreed upon truth
The universe created or not created, ......once again, not an agreed upon truth
God needing to exist if the universe has "detectable proof of creation" ....not an agreed upon truth.
God existing or not existing .....not an agreed upon truth

And to add insult to injury tjrectics was so mesmerized by this blatant fallacious piece of crap he's been running to every site on the internet and repeating this eternaliam nonsense. It's a shame. He's gonna run into someone who will recognize the folly of his misuse of modus ponens and he's gonna have to admit his ignorance of the "if" "then" format and apologize for spreading this garbage around the net. Btw Im actually joking. I have no idea what tjrectics is doing much less if I'm even spelling his handle correctly. After all, why would I care? We all are bored enough to waste time...as this was. But it's gonna get read.....you can bet on it.

Now let's see the post by FKKZe admitting the eternaliam garbage was just that, useless garbage. I'm betting he's too much of a coward and an egomaniac to post a retraction.

I am not sure how serious you are due to the fact you keep on mentioning that you are joking, but for now I'll take it as you trying to make a valid point. There are two points I want to mention:

1) Just a small remark, I don't want to get into some kind of eternalism debate. I don't see what is wrong with using modus ponens. The argument states:
If A, then B
A, therefore B
If B, then not C
A, therefore B, therefore not C


Modus ponens is simple. It Is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths. None of which the externalism example consists of. If you don't know this then please use Google or whatever you have that's an educational resource and learn the rules instead of acting as if you "don't see any problem". It violates the rules of logic in regards to modus ponens by violating proper subject matter to be argued. My op is clear and it's not debatable, it's an actual rule of logic.

maybe reading this next part would show you that I understand modus ponens
===>
This is not a proof of "not C", but it shows if one can prove A then one can simultaneously disprove C. The only thing missing is a proof for A.

<===

2) If you want to convince people you are right, then it would be better to not appear hostile and insult them. If the truth is important to you then those who disagree with you are your greatest resource in finding truth. They are not your enemy, it's this kind of false thinking that gets people emotionally tied to their opinions to a degree they are no longer willing to change them. I am not accusing you of this, but there seems to be a strong indication that you might fall in that category.
I don't have to convince educated people my OP is on point in regards to modus ponens...(emphatic) Period.
It's about the generall idea of convincing people who have differning opinions than yours. Appearing hostile usually prevents people from seeing the truth that you hold.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 12:06:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 8:58:31 PM, A1tre wrote:
At 5/27/2016 9:44:07 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:17:58 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 5/26/2016 5:24:20 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
DDO has its fill of dishonest atheists that perpetuate useless arguments that simply have failed logic with obvious reasoning that has been dismissed and yet atheists refuse to publicly retract or outright admit their fallacious nonsense was just that, nonsense.
Let's start with the ignorant use of modus ponens by FKKZe..... He was especially proud of this turd, but suffice to say you will not see him admit anyhwere the argument violated the rules of logic. He will instead attempt to assassinate the character of the person who exposed his piece of garbage known as.......
(btw, I'm the one who outed this crap and not one atheist on this site even alludes to the fact that it's a personal opinion fallacy because it violated the rules in regards to subject matter of modus ponens. Or what I like to call modus bullllshitttedness.....I'm joking lighten up people.)

,..............The argument from externalism...
If externalism is true, then the universe wasn't created
Eternaliam is true
Therefore the universe wasn't created
God can exist if and only if God is the creator of the universe
Therefore God doesn't exist.

This argument was the reflection of ignorance by an under educated logic student that hadn't quite reached the part in logic where modus ponens is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths.
Eternaliam is true , .....lmfao isn't remotely an agreed upon truth
The universe created or not created, ......once again, not an agreed upon truth
God needing to exist if the universe has "detectable proof of creation" ....not an agreed upon truth.
God existing or not existing .....not an agreed upon truth

And to add insult to injury tjrectics was so mesmerized by this blatant fallacious piece of crap he's been running to every site on the internet and repeating this eternaliam nonsense. It's a shame. He's gonna run into someone who will recognize the folly of his misuse of modus ponens and he's gonna have to admit his ignorance of the "if" "then" format and apologize for spreading this garbage around the net. Btw Im actually joking. I have no idea what tjrectics is doing much less if I'm even spelling his handle correctly. After all, why would I care? We all are bored enough to waste time...as this was. But it's gonna get read.....you can bet on it.

Now let's see the post by FKKZe admitting the eternaliam garbage was just that, useless garbage. I'm betting he's too much of a coward and an egomaniac to post a retraction.

I am not sure how serious you are due to the fact you keep on mentioning that you are joking, but for now I'll take it as you trying to make a valid point. There are two points I want to mention:

1) Just a small remark, I don't want to get into some kind of eternalism debate. I don't see what is wrong with using modus ponens. The argument states:
If A, then B
A, therefore B
If B, then not C
A, therefore B, therefore not C


Modus ponens is simple. It Is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths. None of which the externalism example consists of. If you don't know this then please use Google or whatever you have that's an educational resource and learn the rules instead of acting as if you "don't see any problem". It violates the rules of logic in regards to modus ponens by violating proper subject matter to be argued. My op is clear and it's not debatable, it's an actual rule of logic.

maybe reading this next part would show you that I understand modus ponens
===>
This is not a proof of "not C", but it shows if one can prove A then one can simultaneously disprove C. The only thing missing is a proof for A.

<===

2) If you want to convince people you are right, then it would be better to not appear hostile and insult them. If the truth is important to you then those who disagree with you are your greatest resource in finding truth. They are not your enemy, it's this kind of false thinking that gets people emotionally tied to their opinions to a degree they are no longer willing to change them. I am not accusing you of this, but there seems to be a strong indication that you might fall in that category.
I don't have to convince educated people my OP is on point in regards to modus ponens...(emphatic) Period.
It's about the generall idea of convincing people who have differning opinions than yours. Appearing hostile usually prevents people from seeing the truth that you hold.
Again you don't seem to be following. The op isn't about a truth that I hold. I'm not really sure why you seem to think this has anything to do with opinion. The rules of modus ponens isn't debatable and you apparently don't know this. Once again, it is an inference of truth from acknowledged truths that is the only acceptable subject matter than can be argued via that format. You seem to act as if you're going to debate away a rule specific to this form of logical argumentation. Not really sure what the deal is other than your lack of knowledge and your inability to accept that you can Google the information to realize that. Or is it you don't realize the subject matter that was argued isn't acknowledged truths? Not sure I fully understand what point you're making other than presentation.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 12:35:21 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
You know, I really don't understand your grudge with this argument... you've been talking about it since last September...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 5:48:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 8:57:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 8:18:09 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/26/2016 2:02:03 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:42:34 AM, tejretics wrote:
I'm completely disinterested in this issue as of the moment, so I won't respond to your arguments, but, for the record, I don't believe this argument successfully disproves the existence of God.

I'd like to point out that science definitively shows there is no god. Also, I am a unilineal evolutionist, so I believe that religion is just ignorance and superstition and we will eventually evolve out of it.

Definitively? Let's see your proof that God doesn't exist.

Quite simply because math.

If Janesix read any of Vi_spex's debates she would know that.