Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Let's Hear Your Original Arguments

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 2:44:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Its easy to criticize someone else's attempt to construct an original, formal argument, but a bit harder to make one. I've already constructed about three of my own formal arguments against God, so let's hear yours whether it be for or against God.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 2:48:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 2:44:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Its easy to criticize someone else's attempt to construct an original, formal argument, but a bit harder to make one. I've already constructed about three of my own formal arguments against God, so let's hear yours whether it be for or against God.

Okay my original stance I think was something close to

"I believe in God because my mom and the bible tell me so, lets all be happy Christians, God loves all"

but now "I don't believe in God cause there is no real reason to either way. I don't see any difference in modern religion then in greek mythology. Wanna get me to join your religion, sho me how its special, unique, different."
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 2:48:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 2:44:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Its easy to criticize someone else's attempt to construct an original, formal argument, but a bit harder to make one. I've already constructed about three of my own formal arguments against God, so let's hear yours whether it be for or against God.

I don't see what this can prove, Geo. Freedo makes up "original" arguments all the time, yet we all know he's wildly inaccurate and wrong most of the time.

Having original arguments =/= having right arguments.
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 2:49:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here is my case against God.

1. No evidence of God.
2. Biblical contradictions.
3. God is violent and cruel in the Old Testament even though people say he is all loving.
4. There are thousands of religions who claim in different deities.
5. Evidence of evolution.
6. Evidence of the big bang.
7. The whole idea of God doing works and miracles in the world today is irrational.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 2:55:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 2:48:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/29/2010 2:44:10 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Its easy to criticize someone else's attempt to construct an original, formal argument, but a bit harder to make one. I've already constructed about three of my own formal arguments against God, so let's hear yours whether it be for or against God.
Freedo makes up "original" arguments all the time, yet we all know he's wildly inaccurate and wrong most of the time.

Were they formal syllogisms? I'd like to see them of possible.

I don't see what this can prove...
Having original arguments =/= having right arguments.

Strawman. I never said this proves anything nor did I say original arguments are right ones.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:01:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 2:55:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Were they formal syllogisms? I'd like to see them of possible.

This is the best one I can find: http://en.wikipedia.org...

But, so what if its "formal" or not? Not all arguments, good or bad, are formal, Geo.

Strawman. I never said this proves anything nor did I say original arguments are right ones.

This isn't a formal argument, nor is it an argument at all, so I don't know why you're claiming "strawman" against me.

It's fairly clear from your implication and this entire thread, that you're a little bitter because people keep shooting down your ideas, no matter how hard or original they've ended up being. :P
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:06:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:01:18 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/29/2010 2:55:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Were they formal syllogisms? I'd like to see them of possible.

This is the best one I can find: http://en.wikipedia.org...

But, so what if its "formal" or not? Not all arguments, good or bad, are formal, Geo.

Strawman. I never said this proves anything nor did I say original arguments are right ones.

This isn't a formal argument, nor is it an argument at all, so I don't know why you're claiming "strawman" against me.

Because it's easier than saying "I never said that." And yes, it is a strawman because you misrepresented my position and attacked it. Whether an argument is formal or not, strawman still applies.

It's fairly clear from your implication and this entire thread, that you're a little bitter because people keep shooting down your ideas, no matter how hard or original they've ended up being. :P

This isn't what you initially said now is it. You said I was trying to prove something and that I acted as if original = right, neither of which are true. I never claimed either of those things.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:09:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:06:27 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Why should I bother? It'll be wrong.

Have some more confidence than that, man. Or is it because your Agnostic and think no argument can prove or disprove God. :p

Or if it isn't, someone else will have thought of it and put it better.

How do you know that? Out the three I came up with, only one has been done before.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:09:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:06:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Because it's easier than saying "I never said that." And yes, it is a strawman because you misrepresented my position and attacked it. Whether an argument is formal or not, strawman still applies.

I'd prefer the "I never said that" line.

This isn't what you initially said now is it. You said I was trying to prove something and that I acted as if original = right, neither of which are true. I never claimed either of those things.

I took your implication to be what I typed out just before but am now too lazy to type. Clearly this thread wouldn't even be here if you did not feel some sort of resentment over people picking apart your original arguments. Why else would you challenge them?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:09:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 2:49:46 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
1. No evidence of God.
Argument from ignorance.
2. Biblical contradictions.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.
3. God is violent and cruel in the Old Testament even though people say he is all loving.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.
4. There are thousands of religions who claim in different deities.
There are multitudes of opinions within evolution that disagree. Therefore, all are wrong?
5. Evidence of evolution.
Entirely unrelated.
6. Evidence of the big bang.
Entirely unrelated.
7. The whole idea of God doing works and miracles in the world today is irrational.
Ad hominem.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:12:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@Volkov

Btw, I agree that not all good arguments have to be formal.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:15:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:09:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 2:49:46 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
1. No evidence of God.
Argument from ignorance.
2. Biblical contradictions.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.
3. God is violent and cruel in the Old Testament even though people say he is all loving.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.
4. There are thousands of religions who claim in different deities.
There are multitudes of opinions within evolution that disagree. Therefore, all are wrong?
5. Evidence of evolution.
Entirely unrelated.
6. Evidence of the big bang.
Entirely unrelated.
7. The whole idea of God doing works and miracles in the world today is irrational.
Ad hominem.

Damn, wjmelements! You keep your pimp hand strong!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:17:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:09:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 2:49:46 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
1. No evidence of God.
Argument from ignorance.
2. Biblical contradictions.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.
3. God is violent and cruel in the Old Testament even though people say he is all loving.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.
4. There are thousands of religions who claim in different deities.
There are multitudes of opinions within evolution that disagree. Therefore, all are wrong?
5. Evidence of evolution.
Entirely unrelated.
6. Evidence of the big bang.
Entirely unrelated.
7. The whole idea of God doing works and miracles in the world today is irrational.
Ad hominem.

I think he was referring to the Christian God, not just any god. Also, his number one does seem to hold true, and while that doesn't disprove a god, it gives us reason not to believe in one. By default, a god will not exist. Only when evidence is provided should anyone begin to act on the possibility one does exist.
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:18:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:09:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 2:49:46 PM, Mason0612 wrote:

1. No evidence of God.
Argument from ignorance.

How so? Give me evidence of God and I will take back what I said.

2. Biblical contradictions.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.

No, but it doesn't help it either.

3. God is violent and cruel in the Old Testament even though people say he is all loving.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.

Ok. And your evidence for God is.......

4. There are thousands of religions who claim in different deities.
There are multitudes of opinions within evolution that disagree. Therefore, all are wrong?

You are arguing in favor of a God that we cannot see, taste, feel, touch, smell, hear, or experience. Show me some evidence in favor of God instead of trying to dismiss all of my arguments.

5. Evidence of evolution.
Entirely unrelated.

O ya, God evolved everyone, I forgot about that.

6. Evidence of the big bang.
Entirely unrelated.

Ya, God created the big bang too.

7. The whole idea of God doing works and miracles in the world today is irrational.
Ad hominem.

If someone is cured from a sickness, sometimes they say that they thank God. Why would God cure their sickness but not save the lives of dying children around the world? It is selfish and irrational to say that God intervenes in life.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:18:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:17:19 PM, Mr_Jack_Nixon wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:09:35
I think he was referring to the Christian God, not just any god. Also, his number one does seem to hold true, and while that doesn't disprove a god, it gives us reason not to believe in one. By default, a god will not exist. Only when evidence is provided should anyone begin to act on the possibility one does exist.

False. Not all beliefs need evidence to be considered rational.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:20:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:18:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:17:19 PM, Mr_Jack_Nixon wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:09:35
I think he was referring to the Christian God, not just any god. Also, his number one does seem to hold true, and while that doesn't disprove a god, it gives us reason not to believe in one. By default, a god will not exist. Only when evidence is provided should anyone begin to act on the possibility one does exist.

False. Not all beliefs need evidence to be considered rational.

Yes they do. That is the whole point behind a belief. If there is no reason or evidence for a belief, it is not rational.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:22:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:20:43 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:18:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:17:19 PM, Mr_Jack_Nixon wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:09:35
I think he was referring to the Christian God, not just any god. Also, his number one does seem to hold true, and while that doesn't disprove a god, it gives us reason not to believe in one. By default, a god will not exist. Only when evidence is provided should anyone begin to act on the possibility one does exist.

False. Not all beliefs need evidence to be considered rational.

Yes they do. That is the whole point behind a belief. If there is no reason or evidence for a belief, it is not rational.

No, they don't. 1) That's a good way to introduce an infinite regress whereby NONE of our beliefs are rational. 2) There are properly basic beliefs.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:25:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:22:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:20:43 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:18:32 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:17:19 PM, Mr_Jack_Nixon wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:09:35
I think he was referring to the Christian God, not just any god. Also, his number one does seem to hold true, and while that doesn't disprove a god, it gives us reason not to believe in one. By default, a god will not exist. Only when evidence is provided should anyone begin to act on the possibility one does exist.

False. Not all beliefs need evidence to be considered rational.

Yes they do. That is the whole point behind a belief. If there is no reason or evidence for a belief, it is not rational.

No, they don't. 1) That's a good way to introduce an infinite regress whereby NONE of our beliefs are rational. 2) There are properly basic beliefs.

I am against abortion for example. So are Christians. I don't just believe that for no reason. I believe that because it kills babies. That is my evidence and reason. And no, God is not a basic belief. It is a complex idea.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:26:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:18:07 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:09:35 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 2:49:46 PM, Mason0612 wrote:

1. No evidence of God.
Argument from ignorance.
How so? Give me evidence of God and I will take back what I said.

Your argument is an argument from ignorance by definition. It says that because there is no evidence for proposition X, proposition X is false. It's one of the many logical fallacies.
http://fallacyfiles.org...

2. Biblical contradictions.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.
No, but it doesn't help it either.

Irrelevant. God can exist even if the Bible is man-made folly. Your argument doesn't refute the existence of God.

3. God is violent and cruel in the Old Testament even though people say he is all loving.
An argument against a specific religion doesn't refute the existence of God.
Ok. And your evidence for God is.......

http://fallacyfiles.org...

4. There are thousands of religions who claim in different deities.
There are multitudes of opinions within evolution that disagree. Therefore, all are wrong?
You are arguing in favor of a God that we cannot see, taste, feel, touch, smell, hear, or experience. Show me some evidence in favor of God instead of trying to dismiss all of my arguments.

I pointed out that all your arguments were fallacious. Nowhere did I argue for the existence of God.

5. Evidence of evolution.
Entirely unrelated.
O ya, God evolved everyone, I forgot about that.

This point is negated.

6. Evidence of the big bang.
Entirely unrelated.
Ya, God created the big bang too.

This point is negated.

7. The whole idea of God doing works and miracles in the world today is irrational.
Ad hominem.
If someone is cured from a sickness, sometimes they say that they thank God. Why would God cure their sickness but not save the lives of dying children around the world? It is selfish and irrational to say that God intervenes in life.

The Swiss Army exists whether or not it intervenes in international affairs.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:30:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:25:33 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
I am against abortion for example. I believe that because it kills babies.

Abortion has never killed a baby.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:30:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:30:08 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:25:33 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
I am against abortion for example. I believe that because it kills babies.

Abortion has never killed a baby.

You're a Christian and you're arguing for abortion?
Mr_Jack_Nixon
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:32:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
False. Not all beliefs need evidence to be considered rational.

Can you give me an example of a belief that you don't need evidence to be considered rational?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:32:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:30:55 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:30:08 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:25:33 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
I am against abortion for example. I believe that because it kills babies.

Abortion has never killed a baby.

You're a Christian and you're arguing for abortion?

God wants abortions.
"So I concluded that the dead are better off than the living. And most fortunate of all are those who were never born." -Ecclesiastes 4:2-3a
lol
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:34:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:09:27 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:06:27 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Why should I bother? It'll be wrong.

Have some more confidence than that, man. Or is it because your Agnostic and think no argument can prove or disprove God. :p

I'm not that kind of agnostic. :P

Or if it isn't, someone else will have thought of it and put it better.

How do you know that? Out the three I came up with, only one has been done before.

Hence the or. Maybe your arguments are original, but uh... :D
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:35:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:32:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:30:55 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:30:08 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:25:33 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
I am against abortion for example. I believe that because it kills babies.

Abortion has never killed a baby.

You're a Christian and you're arguing for abortion?

God wants abortions.
"So I concluded that the dead are better off than the living. And most fortunate of all are those who were never born." -Ecclesiastes 4:2-3a
lol

lol, ok. Let's take a look at this "holy bible"

'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
(Leviticus 20:13)

Do you follow this or find it credible?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:35:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:32:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:30:55 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:30:08 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:25:33 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
I am against abortion for example. I believe that because it kills babies.

Abortion has never killed a baby.

You're a Christian and you're arguing for abortion?

God wants abortions.
"So I concluded that the dead are better off than the living. And most fortunate of all are those who were never born." -Ecclesiastes 4:2-3a
lol

Beyond that, though, my political/ethical beliefs can be summed up here:
-The individual must not interfere with another's ability to govern their property.
-Self-ownership
I don't think God has anything damning to say about abortion.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2010 3:36:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/29/2010 3:30:55 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:30:08 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/29/2010 3:25:33 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
I am against abortion for example. I believe that because it kills babies.

Abortion has never killed a baby.

You're a Christian and you're arguing for abortion?

Nah, there's some pro-choice religious people. I'm personally against abortion, but not on religious grounds, more so that it's inappropriate to be using it as a form of birth control like what seems to be so common.