Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Interesting debate on PoE

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 1:02:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

Thoughts and feedback please?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 1:07:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry.

http://www.debate.org...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 1:24:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 1:20:10 PM, Rusty wrote:
http://patas.co...

Very bottom comment. Are you Questionnairre by any chance?

"Patas" is Spanish slang for lesbians!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 1:25:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
From "Questionnaire":

"In the summer of 2011, a Norway lunatic Anders Breivik slaughtered many people, including children. At one point, the children found good hiding place. Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out. Unfortunately, it was the gunman in disguise and they were murdered."

From you:

"In the summer of 2011, a Norway lunatic Anders Breivik slaughtered many people, including children. At one point, the children found good hiding place. Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out. Unfortunately, it was the gunman in disguise and they were murdered."

If you're not that person, then you copied their exact words and cited only their source. You might be that person, though, I don't know. Are you?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2012 1:26:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 1:24:04 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/15/2012 1:20:10 PM, Rusty wrote:
http://patas.co...

Very bottom comment. Are you Questionnairre by any chance?

"Patas" is Spanish slang for lesbians!

Lol, I don't know anything about that site. I just googled one of the academic-sounding sources Microsuck gave.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 8:06:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/15/2012 9:33:32 PM, stubs wrote:
This was a great debate, done by two intelligent people (;

Indeed. One of the best debates I have ever done.

Oh, and for the reference, the norwegian was from the book that I found from here http://philpapers.org...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 8:12:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And the part about Katrina too, I suppose? It's also word for word. Also, that exact Bible verse is used by the person I mentioned, too. I'm just saying it seems kind of fishy.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 8:37:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 8:12:54 AM, Rusty wrote:
And the part about Katrina too, I suppose? It's also word for word. Also, that exact Bible verse is used by the person I mentioned, too. I'm just saying it seems kind of fishy.

If you read it, I think he was the one that used the news sources and I just used him as a 3rd party reference.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 8:38:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 8:37:21 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:12:54 AM, Rusty wrote:
And the part about Katrina too, I suppose? It's also word for word. Also, that exact Bible verse is used by the person I mentioned, too. I'm just saying it seems kind of fishy.

If you read it, I think he was the one that used the news sources and I just used him as a 3rd party reference.

http://philpapers.org...

Go to the Byan Francois argument and go to page 15. It is about half way down.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 8:40:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 8:38:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:37:21 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:12:54 AM, Rusty wrote:
And the part about Katrina too, I suppose? It's also word for word. Also, that exact Bible verse is used by the person I mentioned, too. I'm just saying it seems kind of fishy.

If you read it, I think he was the one that used the news sources and I just used him as a 3rd party reference.


http://philpapers.org...

Go to the Byan Francois argument and go to page 18. It is about half way down.

Edit: It is page 18
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:09:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 8:40:52 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:38:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:37:21 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:12:54 AM, Rusty wrote:
And the part about Katrina too, I suppose? It's also word for word. Also, that exact Bible verse is used by the person I mentioned, too. I'm just saying it seems kind of fishy.

If you read it, I think he was the one that used the news sources and I just used him as a 3rd party reference.


http://philpapers.org...

Go to the Byan Francois argument and go to page 18. It is about half way down.

Edit: It is page 18

Interesting.

Consider your exact words:

"Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out."

Now consider the quote from Bryan:

"Eventually, they saw a police officer, who told them it was safe to come out now."

So yours is slightly different from that, but it's different in EXACTLY the same way that Questionnaire's phrasing of the original quote is different. Look again at the bolded quote of yours above and then this, by Questionnaire:

"Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out."

Same thing. If you aren't that person, are you telling me you phrased Frances' quote in the exact same way by coincidence?
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:15:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 9:09:53 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:40:52 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:38:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:37:21 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:12:54 AM, Rusty wrote:
And the part about Katrina too, I suppose? It's also word for word. Also, that exact Bible verse is used by the person I mentioned, too. I'm just saying it seems kind of fishy.

If you read it, I think he was the one that used the news sources and I just used him as a 3rd party reference.


http://philpapers.org...

Go to the Byan Francois argument and go to page 18. It is about half way down.

Edit: It is page 18

Interesting.

Consider your exact words:

"Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out."

Now consider the quote from Bryan:

"Eventually, they saw a police officer, who told them it was safe to come out now."

So yours is slightly different from that, but it's different in EXACTLY the same way that Questionnaire's phrasing of the original quote is different. Look again at the bolded quote of yours above and then this, by Questionnaire:

"Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out."

Same thing. If you aren't that person, are you telling me you phrased Frances' quote in the exact same way by coincidence?

I was pretty much quoting the information from Brian.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:15:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The reason I'm asking about this is because it makes it look like you just copied and pasted someones argument and took their source too, so it would look like you used the original source when you were researching.

The fact that you even got the wrong page number just lends credibility to this, since the other guy got the exact same wrong page number. Give me a break.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:16:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 9:15:10 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 9:09:53 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:40:52 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:38:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:37:21 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:12:54 AM, Rusty wrote:
And the part about Katrina too, I suppose? It's also word for word. Also, that exact Bible verse is used by the person I mentioned, too. I'm just saying it seems kind of fishy.

If you read it, I think he was the one that used the news sources and I just used him as a 3rd party reference.


http://philpapers.org...

Go to the Byan Francois argument and go to page 18. It is about half way down.

Edit: It is page 18

Interesting.

Consider your exact words:

"Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out."

Now consider the quote from Bryan:

"Eventually, they saw a police officer, who told them it was safe to come out now."

So yours is slightly different from that, but it's different in EXACTLY the same way that Questionnaire's phrasing of the original quote is different. Look again at the bolded quote of yours above and then this, by Questionnaire:

"Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out."

Same thing. If you aren't that person, are you telling me you phrased Frances' quote in the exact same way by coincidence?

I was pretty much quoting the information from Brian.

No, you were quoting someone word-for-word who cited Bryan. You even got the same exact wrong page number as that person for your source. It's extremely obvious that you just copied and pasted his argument and sources.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:17:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 9:16:46 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 5/16/2012 9:15:10 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 9:09:53 AM, Rusty wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:40:52 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:38:25 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:37:21 AM, Microsuck wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:12:54 AM, Rusty wrote:
And the part about Katrina too, I suppose? It's also word for word. Also, that exact Bible verse is used by the person I mentioned, too. I'm just saying it seems kind of fishy.

If you read it, I think he was the one that used the news sources and I just used him as a 3rd party reference.


http://philpapers.org...

Go to the Byan Francois argument and go to page 18. It is about half way down.

Edit: It is page 18

Interesting.

Consider your exact words:

"Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out."

Now consider the quote from Bryan:

"Eventually, they saw a police officer, who told them it was safe to come out now."

So yours is slightly different from that, but it's different in EXACTLY the same way that Questionnaire's phrasing of the original quote is different. Look again at the bolded quote of yours above and then this, by Questionnaire:

"Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out."

Same thing. If you aren't that person, are you telling me you phrased Frances' quote in the exact same way by coincidence?

I was pretty much quoting the information from Brian.

No, you were quoting someone word-for-word who cited Bryan. You even got the same exact wrong page number as that person for your source. It's extremely obvious that you just copied and pasted his argument and sources.

Although "quoting" is a little misleading, since you didn't mention the person who you took words from.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:48:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 9:15:29 AM, Rusty wrote:
The reason I'm asking about this is because it makes it look like you just copied and pasted someones argument and took their source too, so it would look like you used the original source when you were researching.

The fact that you even got the wrong page number just lends credibility to this, since the other guy got the exact same wrong page number. Give me a break.

If this is true, it's kind of ridiculous that microsuck made such a big fuss over reasonalliance....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think plagiarism is as big of a deal as everyone on here seems to think. I do not care if any of my opponents plagiarize.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 8:24:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would add the premise that allowing evil would be an impossible act, as God cannot sin, being morally perfect, and allowing evil to ravage your creations would be sinful.

Which I would form as, God is morally required to prevent evil.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 8:32:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 8:24:29 PM, phantom wrote:
I would add the premise that allowing evil would be an impossible act, as God cannot sin, being morally perfect, and allowing evil to ravage your creations would be sinful.

Which I would form as, God is morally required to prevent evil.

The argument might work if he did not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Which is very hard to object to because of our limited perspective.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 8:40:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 8:32:01 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:24:29 PM, phantom wrote:
I would add the premise that allowing evil would be an impossible act, as God cannot sin, being morally perfect, and allowing evil to ravage your creations would be sinful.

Which I would form as, God is morally required to prevent evil.

The argument might work if he did not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. Which is very hard to object to because of our limited perspective.

Which is saying that God is accomplishing a purpose which is fulfilled only by allowing evil. However taking into account that God is omnipotent and omniscient, it could be said that it is highly unlikely He could not use some other method which did not include his creations being ravaged by evil.

(I am playing devils advocate by the way)
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:04:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 8:40:01 PM, phantom wrote:

Which is saying that God is accomplishing a purpose which is fulfilled only by allowing evil. However taking into account that God is omnipotent and omniscient, it could be said that it is highly unlikely He could not use some other method which did not include his creations being ravaged by evil.


(I am playing devils advocate by the way)

I feel you but I addressed that point in the debate. It may not be feasible for God to create a world where humans did not sin because it is up to humans to either react affirmatively or not to God's loving and gracious influence.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:12:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 9:04:20 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:40:01 PM, phantom wrote:

Which is saying that God is accomplishing a purpose which is fulfilled only by allowing evil. However taking into account that God is omnipotent and omniscient, it could be said that it is highly unlikely He could not use some other method which did not include his creations being ravaged by evil.


(I am playing devils advocate by the way)

I feel you but I addressed that point in the debate. It may not be feasible for God to create a world where humans did not sin because it is up to humans to either react affirmatively or not to God's loving and gracious influence.

Why is it necessary for humans to be able to turn away from God and how does that justify allowing evil as an act that corresponds with morality? Also, evil is incredibly rampant in the world. Couldn't God just partially prevent it to the extent that it is not so abounding but still achieves the purpose you mention?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:21:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 9:04:20 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 8:40:01 PM, phantom wrote:

Which is saying that God is accomplishing a purpose which is fulfilled only by allowing evil. However taking into account that God is omnipotent and omniscient, it could be said that it is highly unlikely He could not use some other method which did not include his creations being ravaged by evil.


(I am playing devils advocate by the way)

I feel you but I addressed that point in the debate. It may not be feasible for God to create a world where humans did not sin because it is up to humans to either react affirmatively or not to God's loving and gracious influence.

But isnt this problem within the christian theology itself, with the existance of heaven?

For example, children. Im not sure if you believe this or not, but most christians would accept that Children, christian or not, are in heaven, despite whatever sin they may have done, i.e. lie, steal, etc. But whether they choose to accept Jesus or not, is irrespective of the fact, atleast according to you guys, that they get to enter heaven. This also applies to, atleast by some christians, tribes in the amazon that had never heard of Jesus or the Bible and that has existed, cut off by the world for thousands of years.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 9:21:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 9:12:14 PM, phantom wrote:


Why is it necessary for humans to be able to turn away from God and how does that justify allowing evil as an act that corresponds with morality? Also, evil is incredibly rampant in the world. Couldn't God just partially prevent it to the extent that it is not so abounding but still achieves the purpose you mention?

If humans couldn't turn away from God than no one would truly love him because we wouldn't have the option. You think evil is "incredibly rampant" but you cannot show that it is anything more than inscrutable. Even with that being said how often would you want God preventing it? Stopping mass murders? Any murders? Anyone who thought about murdering someone? And then ask, does God know better when to prevent evil or do I?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 10:14:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 9:21:55 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 9:12:14 PM, phantom wrote:


Why is it necessary for humans to be able to turn away from God and how does that justify allowing evil as an act that corresponds with morality? Also, evil is incredibly rampant in the world. Couldn't God just partially prevent it to the extent that it is not so abounding but still achieves the purpose you mention?

If humans couldn't turn away from God than no one would truly love him because we wouldn't have the option.

The problem with this is that it turns your assertions right around into saying God does not truly love us. For God is morally perfect thus is required to love us just as we, if we were morally perfect, would have to love God. Also in heaven won't we be perfect? We would have to love God without any other option thus wouldn't that mean love doesn't exist in heaven?

You think evil is "incredibly rampant" but you cannot show that it is anything more than inscrutable.

Did you know that 21,000 children died today? Same goes for yesterday as well as tomorrow and every other day. This amounts to 1 death every four seconds and more than 7 million children dying every year. http://www.globalissues.org...

Self evident fact, bro.

Even with that being said how often would you want God preventing it? Stopping mass murders? Any murders? Anyone who thought about murdering someone?

All those questions are somewhat irrelevant. I don't need to answer specifically how much God could prevent it. I can just postulate that allowing aids, cancer and thousands of other diseases to ravage much of your creations would not be necessary just so that morally significant free-will would exist.

And then ask, does God know better when to prevent evil or do I?

God does. But wait, that's just a strawman. Hypothetically speaking the disputed God would know when to prevent evil, being omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. But we also possess a sense of logic in which we can reason that all this poverty, wasted lives, death, decay and suffering really isn't quite necessary.

Also how does any of this account for natural disasters?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)