Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What won't you believe

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 5:15:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Most religious books are supposedly written by divinely inspired men. It is possible that some of their pages never made it into the official versions of the holy book.

A consistent religious devotee would necessarily have to believe in such works if they ever came to surface. Does that mean that you would believe the earth was flat or in child molestation if the lost pages said so?

What would the pages have to say in order for you to throw them out (assuming they were as authentic as the rest of your book)?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 5:19:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Everything I've ever said is bullsh!t, and I've just been yanking your d!cks this whole time

Signed *Insert holy prophet dude of your choice*

P.S. You're all fvcking retarded"
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 7:53:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 5:15:09 PM, Sieben wrote:

What would the pages have to say in order for you to throw them out (assuming they were as authentic as the rest of your book)?

Sieben, if you had faith, what would you need to see to reject the work?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 9:38:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 7:53:25 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/25/2011 5:15:09 PM, Sieben wrote:

What would the pages have to say in order for you to throw them out (assuming they were as authentic as the rest of your book)?

Sieben, if you had faith, what would you need to see to reject the work?

You mean if I were retarded, what would it make for me to stop being retarded? Nothing. From your hypothesis I am retarded. I'd believe anything. That's what faith means. I'm just trying to get you to admit it.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 9:50:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 9:38:32 PM, Sieben wrote:

That's what faith means.

You actually believe Issac Newton was retarded,and this is not satire you are really serious?

What is your particular epistemology, and how do you know that particular epistemology actually answers the question as to what generates knowledge?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 10:25:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 9:50:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/25/2011 9:38:32 PM, Sieben wrote:

That's what faith means.

You actually believe Issac Newton was retarded,and this is not satire you are really serious?

What is your particular epistemology, and how do you know that particular epistemology actually answers the question as to what generates knowledge?

For most people, religion and reason are regarded as two opposite subjects.(Obviously this is not universally true though) So, one may be incredibly well versed in chemistry or physics or what have you, but when it comes to religion could believe that fairies or unicorns created us. Newton also believed in alchemy, does that give alchemy any credibility? These two beliefs can exist simultaneously as most people have completely divided the two subjects. This can be seen a lot in religious scientists who apply strict empirical reason to the natural world, but believe in cosmic Jewish zombies on Sundays. So Newton was obviously not retarded in the literal sense, but to see his beliefs about religion, retarded is the only word that comes to mind.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 10:26:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 9:50:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/25/2011 9:38:32 PM, Sieben wrote:

That's what faith means.

You actually believe Issac Newton was retarded,and this is not satire you are really serious?

I believe his faith was retarded.

What is your particular epistemology, and how do you know that particular epistemology actually answers the question as to what generates knowledge?
I don't claim to have knowledge.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 10:41:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 10:25:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:

Newton also believed in alchemy, does that give alchemy any credibility?

Simply because Newton asserted something did not give it credibility, it was the strength of his warrant. Are his assertions known now to be false in many areas, well of course they are - but they have to be judged based on the information which was available at that time.

So Newton was obviously not retarded in the literal sense, but to see his beliefs about religion, retarded is the only word that comes to mind.

Do you actually think "he believed in jewish zombies" accurately describes his views and warrant regarding religion. Have you even read any of his works or are just just judging him because he had faith?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 10:44:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 10:41:33 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/25/2011 10:25:01 PM, socialpinko wrote:

Newton also believed in alchemy, does that give alchemy any credibility?

Simply because Newton asserted something did not give it credibility, it was the strength of his warrant. Are his assertions known now to be false in many areas, well of course they are - but they have to be judged based on the information which was available at that time.


So Newton was obviously not retarded in the literal sense, but to see his beliefs about religion, retarded is the only word that comes to mind.

Do you actually think "he believed in jewish zombies" accurately describes his views and warrant regarding religion. Have you even read any of his works or are just just judging him because he had faith?

When I mentioned cosmic Jewish zombies I was referring to a general belief and not Newton's in particular. I never asserted any specifics about what Newton's religious beliefs were.
And I would never judge someone merely for having faith. However, if one's faith is clearly opposed to reason or logic, I might make fun of that person but not much more.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 10:53:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 10:44:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:

However, if one's faith is clearly opposed to reason or logic, I might make fun of that person but not much more.

Faith is often based on reason and logic, you just debated one such person not less than a few days ago and you could not refute the argument presented for being faulty in either case. How can you make such a claim now when you were clearly presented such a case?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 10:59:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 10:53:14 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/25/2011 10:44:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:

However, if one's faith is clearly opposed to reason or logic, I might make fun of that person but not much more.

Faith is often based on reason and logic, you just debated one such person not less than a few days ago and you could not refute the argument presented for being faulty in either case. How can you make such a claim now when you were clearly presented such a case?

Faith is by definition belief in an unsubstantiated claim. I provided that definiton with a source but my opponent merely debated semantics with me and didn't get around to providing very much of his own argument.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 6:46:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 5:15:09 PM, Sieben wrote:
Most religious books are supposedly written by divinely inspired men. It is possible that some of their pages never made it into the official versions of the holy book.

A consistent religious devotee would necessarily have to believe in such works if they ever came to surface. Does that mean that you would believe the earth was flat or in child molestation if the lost pages said so?

What would the pages have to say in order for you to throw them out (assuming they were as authentic as the rest of your book)?

God is also inspiring the editing!
The Cross.. the Cross.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 6:57:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I strongly dislike people describing people who have faith in a religion as stupid, or even the faith itself as stupid. I don't believe but I recognise that it is a complex and important area and god can not be dismissed easily. There are a lot of really clever theologians.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 7:02:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 5:15:09 PM, Sieben wrote:
Most religious books are supposedly written by divinely inspired men. It is possible that some of their pages never made it into the official versions of the holy book.

A consistent religious devotee would necessarily have to believe in such works if they ever came to surface. Does that mean that you would believe the earth was flat or in child molestation if the lost pages said so?

What would the pages have to say in order for you to throw them out (assuming they were as authentic as the rest of your book)?
Theoretically, though child molestation is incompatible with the current covenants, it will need a hell of a good argument to do so.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Fatihah
Posts: 7,712
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 8:11:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 5:15:09 PM, Sieben wrote:
Most religious books are supposedly written by divinely inspired men. It is possible that some of their pages never made it into the official versions of the holy book.

A consistent religious devotee would necessarily have to believe in such works if they ever came to surface. Does that mean that you would believe the earth was flat or in child molestation if the lost pages said so?

What would the pages have to say in order for you to throw them out (assuming they were as authentic as the rest of your book)?

Response: Any religious book with discrepancies and no proof that it is of divine origin would make me reject it. The qur'an however does not have this issue, which is why myself and any other person can claim that it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 8:53:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 7:02:32 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Theoretically, though child molestation is incompatible with the current covenants, it will need a hell of a good argument to do so.

Well it could easily say something ridiculous and objectionable is the point.

At 3/26/2011 8:11:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Any religious book with discrepancies and no proof that it is of divine origin would make me reject it. The qur'an however does not have this issue, which is why myself and any other person can claim that it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

I did not say the book had discrepancies. I said its possible that the new text was from the same source as the rest of your book, and that the new text could say virtually anything. Ergo, you'll believe anything, right?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,712
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 9:20:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 8:53:25 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/26/2011 7:02:32 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Theoretically, though child molestation is incompatible with the current covenants, it will need a hell of a good argument to do so.

Well it could easily say something ridiculous and objectionable is the point.

At 3/26/2011 8:11:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Any religious book with discrepancies and no proof that it is of divine origin would make me reject it. The qur'an however does not have this issue, which is why myself and any other person can claim that it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

I did not say the book had discrepancies. I said its possible that the new text was from the same source as the rest of your book, and that the new text could say virtually anything. Ergo, you'll believe anything, right?

Response: A new text from the same source would become part of the same book. Thus my answer is still the same. If the text is authentic and it provides a discrepancy and proves the source or book is not divine, then I would reject it. However, the qur'an does not have this issue, as it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 9:33:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 9:20:11 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/26/2011 8:53:25 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/26/2011 7:02:32 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Theoretically, though child molestation is incompatible with the current covenants, it will need a hell of a good argument to do so.

Well it could easily say something ridiculous and objectionable is the point.

At 3/26/2011 8:11:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Any religious book with discrepancies and no proof that it is of divine origin would make me reject it. The qur'an however does not have this issue, which is why myself and any other person can claim that it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

I did not say the book had discrepancies. I said its possible that the new text was from the same source as the rest of your book, and that the new text could say virtually anything. Ergo, you'll believe anything, right?

Response: A new text from the same source would become part of the same book. Thus my answer is still the same. If the text is authentic and it provides a discrepancy and proves the source or book is not divine, then I would reject it. However, the qur'an does not have this issue, as it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

Response: Surely we can tell you are responding by the fact you bothered to quote him?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 9:34:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 9:20:11 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/26/2011 8:53:25 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/26/2011 7:02:32 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Theoretically, though child molestation is incompatible with the current covenants, it will need a hell of a good argument to do so.

Well it could easily say something ridiculous and objectionable is the point.

At 3/26/2011 8:11:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Any religious book with discrepancies and no proof that it is of divine origin would make me reject it. The qur'an however does not have this issue, which is why myself and any other person can claim that it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

I did not say the book had discrepancies. I said its possible that the new text was from the same source as the rest of your book, and that the new text could say virtually anything. Ergo, you'll believe anything, right?

Response: A new text from the same source would become part of the same book. Thus my answer is still the same. If the text is authentic and it provides a discrepancy and proves the source or book is not divine, then I would reject it. However, the qur'an does not have this issue, as it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

Response:Response:Response: I have never said its a DISCREPANCY. I said its just NEW INFORMATION. Learn to read please.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,712
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 9:38:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 9:33:28 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 3/26/2011 9:20:11 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/26/2011 8:53:25 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/26/2011 7:02:32 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Theoretically, though child molestation is incompatible with the current covenants, it will need a hell of a good argument to do so.

Well it could easily say something ridiculous and objectionable is the point.

At 3/26/2011 8:11:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Any religious book with discrepancies and no proof that it is of divine origin would make me reject it. The qur'an however does not have this issue, which is why myself and any other person can claim that it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

I did not say the book had discrepancies. I said its possible that the new text was from the same source as the rest of your book, and that the new text could say virtually anything. Ergo, you'll believe anything, right?

Response: A new text from the same source would become part of the same book. Thus my answer is still the same. If the text is authentic and it provides a discrepancy and proves the source or book is not divine, then I would reject it. However, the qur'an does not have this issue, as it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

Response: Surely we can tell you are responding by the fact you bothered to quote him?

Response: I don't know. I 'm not you.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,712
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 9:43:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 9:34:11 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/26/2011 9:20:11 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/26/2011 8:53:25 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/26/2011 7:02:32 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Theoretically, though child molestation is incompatible with the current covenants, it will need a hell of a good argument to do so.

Well it could easily say something ridiculous and objectionable is the point.

At 3/26/2011 8:11:47 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: Any religious book with discrepancies and no proof that it is of divine origin would make me reject it. The qur'an however does not have this issue, which is why myself and any other person can claim that it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

I did not say the book had discrepancies. I said its possible that the new text was from the same source as the rest of your book, and that the new text could say virtually anything. Ergo, you'll believe anything, right?

Response: A new text from the same source would become part of the same book. Thus my answer is still the same. If the text is authentic and it provides a discrepancy and proves the source or book is not divine, then I would reject it. However, the qur'an does not have this issue, as it is indeed the true word of Allah(swt).

Response:Response:Response: I have never said its a DISCREPANCY. I said its just NEW INFORMATION. Learn to read please.

Response: I never said you did say that there was a discrepancy. So clearly, you need to follow your own advice.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 10:23:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 9:43:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: I never said you did say that there was a discrepancy. So clearly, you need to follow your own advice.

No. You need to learn to read. Discrepancies were never topical. Never.

But that's okay. You have down syndrome. As evidence I offer the facts that you can't, have lost all your debates, and have down snydrome.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,712
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 10:35:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 10:23:30 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/26/2011 9:43:32 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response: I never said you did say that there was a discrepancy. So clearly, you need to follow your own advice.

No. You need to learn to read. Discrepancies were never topical. Never.

But that's okay. You have down syndrome. As evidence I offer the facts that you can't, have lost all your debates, and have down snydrome.

Response: To the contrary, it was never stated that discrepancies was the topic, making your point pointless and further demonstrating your inability to comprehend. Secondly, I've won all of my debates, supported by the fact that you can't prove otherwise as well as the fact that your losing this current debate. And as we all know, ad hominems come into play when someone has lost the debate, as you are demonstrating. I suggest you stick to something you are good at, if any, rather than continue to embarrass yourself.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 10:41:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 9:50:50 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/25/2011 9:38:32 PM, Sieben wrote:

That's what faith means.

You actually believe Issac Newton was retarded,and this is not satire you are really serious?

What is your particular epistemology, and how do you know that particular epistemology actually answers the question as to what generates knowledge?

ideas naturally come to me of Things which interact through cause and effect depending on their natures.

I wouldn't claim to absolute knowledge.. I can explain how things seem/appear to me Given the manner in which I see things.

In what manner does one come to Know.. or have an understanding.. that God exists?

perhaps you can explain it to me..

It would seem (to me) that we're sufficiently similar (being humans).. that we would be able to understand each other's reasoning...

For example: if you said god Spoke to you... then I'd understand why you believe in god.

if you said you can see his works in the world.. Then you could probably explain which works.. and how that means god... and we could both understand what's being said.

If you appeal to Abstract Reasoning/necessary relations.. like an ontological argument.. I'm pretty confident I can follow you there too..

And if I find I disagree with your conclusions.. I'm confident I can say why/how.. what I think isn't evident.. and that we can discuss it.

If you simply refuse to say why/how you come to such an understanding.. Then we can't really discuss it :/
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 10:53:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 6:57:57 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
I strongly dislike people describing people who have faith in a religion as stupid, or even the faith itself as stupid. I don't believe but I recognise that it is a complex and important area and god can not be dismissed easily. There are a lot of really clever theologians.

People who have a religion are not stupid. It is subscribing to that religion based on nothing more than faith with no ccare for what the evidence points to that I think is stupid. I respect the process of placing reason behind one's beliefs while I may wholeheardetly disagree with one's coonclusions.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 10:57:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
All those so called prophets had some pretty damn good things to say(as well as some bad too), but I highly doubt they spoke to God so even if there were missing pages it wouldn't really be necessary to follow them anyway..
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 11:33:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 10:35:05 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response:
That's really annoying. I'll show you!

To the contrary, it was never stated that discrepancies was the topic, making your point pointless and further demonstrating your inability to comprehend.

Faggot: You brought up discrepancies for no reason. No reason at all.

Secondly, I've won all of my debates, supported by the fact that you can't prove otherwise

Faggot: Actually I looked at your profile and you lost all of them. Lol.

as well as the fact that your losing this current debate.

Faggot: Well you are totally avoiding the OP, so no I'm not losing it.

And as we all know, ad hominems come into play when someone has lost the debate, as you are demonstrating.

Faggot: It's not an ad hominem. I'm not claiming i'm correct because you're a faggot. I'm claiming you're just a faggot. Its icing on the cake. You are not wrong because you're a faggot.

I suggest you stick to something you are good at, if any, rather than continue to embarrass yourself.

Faggot: Your reasoning is terrible. You have avoided the OP completely. I am not ridiculed in the eyes of my peers. If religious wackjobs think so, its because they're retarded.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 11:43:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 10:53:14 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:

Faith is often based on reason and logic...

Impossible - faith specifically requires a lack of reason or knowledge. What you are talking about is warranted assertability =P
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 11:47:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 10:59:25 PM, socialpinko wrote:

Faith is by definition belief in an unsubstantiated claim.

A few things, when speaking of epistemologies, words like substantiated are non-trivial because you have to define the metric by which knowledge is asserted.

Faith has many definitions, one of them is indeed belief in a position without reason of material evidence. However, that is not the only definition, nor it is the relevant definition for theistic faith. Further that knowledge as limited to material evidence and reason was rejected as a epistemology because it is self-contradictory, this is logical positivism.

I was speaking on this debate where your opponent argued for supernaturalism and countered your resolution that on balance, naturalism has much firmer evidence :

http://www.debate.org...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,712
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 11:47:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/26/2011 11:33:29 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 3/26/2011 10:35:05 AM, Fatihah wrote:

Response:
That's really annoying. I'll show you!

To the contrary, it was never stated that discrepancies was the topic, making your point pointless and further demonstrating your inability to comprehend.

Faggot: You brought up discrepancies for no reason. No reason at all.

Secondly, I've won all of my debates, supported by the fact that you can't prove otherwise

Faggot: Actually I looked at your profile and you lost all of them. Lol.

as well as the fact that your losing this current debate.

Faggot: Well you are totally avoiding the OP, so no I'm not losing it.

And as we all know, ad hominems come into play when someone has lost the debate, as you are demonstrating.

Faggot: It's not an ad hominem. I'm not claiming i'm correct because you're a faggot. I'm claiming you're just a faggot. Its icing on the cake. You are not wrong because you're a faggot.

I suggest you stick to something you are good at, if any, rather than continue to embarrass yourself.

Faggot: Your reasoning is terrible. You have avoided the OP completely. I am not ridiculed in the eyes of my peers. If religious wackjobs think so, its because they're retarded.

Response: Bring up discrepancies clearly relate to the topic, as the OP is asking of what will a person not believe, to which I replied by saying that I would not believe a discrepancy, thus it is a relative response. The simple fact that you can't comprehend it only demonstrates your inability to comprehend. Secondly, you present the same egotistical and absurd logic as many online debators by suggesting that a debate is lost because an online consensus says so. Such absurd logic, as you are suggesting that truth is based on the consensus of debate.org registered users and not.......... FACTS. Sorry, any reasonable person will see that such logic is flawed. It is clear that I've won my debates as you are helping to demonstrate by your inability to point out a flaw in any of my arguments. If it was lost, you would be able to present its flaw, yet you have not, because you can not.

Lastly, you can use your user name. You don't have to replace it with the word "Faggot".