The Instigator
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LoveRichardDawkins
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Existence is to exists with one and other within ones self, is it not?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 983 times Debate No: 115140
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

2far4u2CharlesDarwin

Pro

Existence is to exists with one and other within ones self.
Existence creator of what ever name and nature deserves all praise and glory for our own existence as to exist with one and other within ones self.

Do atheists exist anymore?
as they seem to be an endangered species that should not be put upon the endangered existence species list. AT ALL.
LoveRichardDawkins

Con

Firstly, since you are the 1st proponent of this motion the owness is on you to clearly define the terms of the debate.
This has not been clearly done. Secondly, you need to explain why the existence of a creator means that existence in itself means to exist within oneself. There is no tangible link as of yet in your argument. Furthermore, you purported your stance that a creator deserves all praise and glory. You need to explain what merits praise and glory - is it physical strength? Almighty love? Moral courage? etc. It seems intuitive, considering the nature of religion today that awesome love is what makes god great. If that is so then how do you account for the immense amount of suffering in the world? It seems that the creations of this praise worthy god are sick and immoral.

And by the way, I am an atheist and we do exist.
Debate Round No. 1
2far4u2CharlesDarwin

Pro

OK then I take that as no comment in comments as your 10 minute reply time is up.

So I will start with one question as to answer yours.

How could an existence creator have unconditional love, if free will was taken from its own creation "us", by coming out from behind an eclipse, as to crucify its own free will and not become a despot in nature as the telepathy dictator?
LoveRichardDawkins

Con

Haha! By your own admission, you have supported my argument. I am arguing that this supposed creator doesn't have unconditional love and you have just supported it. Also your point rests on the presupposition that there is a creator and we are its creation. You have offered no explanation as to why this is the case. Furthermore your question lacks a burden of proof that we do have free will. Where is your evidence for free will except that your supposed deity gave us free will. Arguably, a more naturalistic stance would more empirically argue that we are pre-determined by our environment as Darwin showed. Also what makes you believe that we are the most important part of God's creation - as if science hasn't shown us just how small and insignificant we are in this universe.

Your question has not dealt with my argument. It seems as if you haven't even read it. Finally, what on earth is this 'eclipse' you are talking about? And what is a 'despot in nature' and 'telepathy dictator'. I know what the individual words mean but those terms seem to be moronic contradictions and very confusing. Can you please define them otherwise those voting will have no idea what your argument is talking about? How does your latest argument even engage with the question?

There are many things that need to be made clear here. You need to deal with this. If you want I can determine the parameters of the debate for you.
Debate Round No. 2
2far4u2CharlesDarwin

Pro

To exist and to exists is as one but two different existing. I am not here to convince you that an existence creator exists or existed or doesn't exist at all. All I am asking is Existence is to exists with one and other within ones self, is it not?

So one could also say that we are of two individuals living on one that exist with others that are two individuals as one and the saying me myself and I as also correct as the lord of the manner the host of the body and the holy ghost as the soul. If you where your own judge jury and executioner based upon everybody else's exceptions instead of your own would you grant yourself entree to the havens or the heavens.

Well my dear brother from another mother and dad, I suppose i should have could have and would have when ever want need and have are but rules that need what and have to be considered as too exists with one and other within ones self, is it not is not equals the finish line is out of site when ever you live in the rear vision mirror that must in Jesus we trust.

In life that we exists with two brains as stupid as we are that one is lost and the other is out looking for it.
Much like we must have two sexual organs as one couldn't be that stupid with just one.
I do wonder where an individual that is born both genitalia feels about all of this?

Peace be with you sister "(or) (and)" brother from another mother and dad. OMG what if mum and dad are of the same nature?

Praise be upon our existence creator that must be the maker of an unfathomed nature that leagues glory of the loving three of the apple of trees love that freed the life of us, not we then Jesus is within you and me means us all.

PS: and I'll believe it when I see it said Thomas the Apostle. Thomas the Apostle (Biblical Hebrew: תומאס הקדושR06;; Coptic: r09;r41;r17;q93;r29;; Classical Syriac: ܬܐܘܡܐ ܫܠܝܚܐR06; Thoma Shliha; also called Didymus which means "the twin") was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, according to the New Testament and so does you and me. But does us all? Amen
LoveRichardDawkins

Con

Firstly, I need to point out that you are very difficult to understand. I find it ridiculous that despite you saying that you are not trying to prove the existence of God you keep referring to God and Jesus in your argument. And, if you want to actually argue that then you do need to prove that God exists.

You also haven't explained what existence is. Is existence the ability to observe physical matter? Is it to be conscious of one's "self"? I do not believe that existence has anything to do with consciousness. Take matter for example. It clearly exists. It is there right in front of you. It weighs something. It can be measured. It can be quantified. However, it does not have a concept of "self". It is not self-aware.

You may argue that its existence is reliant upon our ability to subjectively observe it. I have two responses. Firstly, we can back up our observations of an existence of something with logical reasoning. For example, scientists may view something like a black hole in the Hubble telescope. You could question their ability to know that that actually exists. However, our logical reasoning can explain that black holes are physically possible. We can explain why they exist. We could also explain logically why that specific black hole existed there. My second response is that our observations are not only repeated so many times that they are extremely reliable and that they have been viewed by other conscious beings, but also that the conclusions and findings from our observations of existence continue to produce reliable and predictable results in our reality. For example, we could observe gravity. You may question: does that really exist? Are we not basing our judgement of its existence on our subjective view of reality. Well, firstly you can cross-reference our view of reality with so many other differing views that make gravity seem more tangible. But furthermore, gravity's existence makes sense of objective reality. What I mean by that is that our understanding of it makes us able to give reliable predictions about what will occur in the natural world as a result of gravity. Eg. we would know that an apple would fall to the ground if we dropped it. We can test an prove our reasoning and observations by their continued ability to produce reliable results and predictions in the real world.

However, when it comes to knowing that we ourselves exist we cannot be sure. I will ask you: prove that your 'self' exists. The existence of our 'soul' is a complete red herring. The 'soul' does not exist in itself. It is a construct that relies upon the physical construction of our body.

So, no existence is not to exist with one another within ones self. Rather existence is something that is physical and can be proved to exist using objective observation and reasoning that we know is reliable through its continued ability to provide reliable results.
Debate Round No. 3
2far4u2CharlesDarwin

Pro

So I need to not what to waste this place within this debate with an English lesson for you.

Exists is not exist http://www.thesaurus.com....
Existence. Verb Sentences. We have seen in a previous section that "to be" is used in sentences to mean "is equivalent to": ... However, sometimes "to be" means "to exist": The pencil is on the chair.

Now if you are speaking for Professor Brain Cox you had better up your game as you are not within the league of his stupidity or take it down if you like. I do not refer to a God I refer to "our existence creator" I once did but it was no more then an error within ones own expression of ones own self. It seems to me that you have not even watch or read Thomas the apostles hidden scriptures and seem to be grasping at straws.

So how many ants do you consciously kill without even knowing it so and when did you start to care that you shouldn't kill something for no just reason? As we kill to survive be it vegetables, fruits, herbs, animals of all sorts, insects and even each other if needs be. So what are we but us the dominant species that bacteria hasn't as yet destroyed us. This is logical reasoning that has obviously failed us the human race that finds it so hard to be humane. What do we learn from history that we learn very little from it at all.

So us, we exists within ones own self of rational reasoning and we learn that it is not all about ones self it is all about us that shine within yourself to project in ones own nature the less I look the more I see and the more I see the less I look. This is to exists with one and other within ones self.
LoveRichardDawkins

Con

Believe me. It's not me who needs the english lesson. Given that, I thank you for actually giving some definitions for once.

So let's roll with what you have just claimed. Firstly, you provide us with an interesting argument about the brutal inhumanity of the human race. Now this is interesting. You argue that because we kill so many things this makes us inhumane. Well then, we have to consider what humane means. Because if humane implies being human-like then killing things must be humane. After all, if humans do kill so much then we have to consider the possibility that killing is part of humanity and that after all we aren't especially moral. I know that this is hard to swallow. It's not nice to consider that our species is actually brutal. But sometimes the truth is inconvenient. In this case, I do not consider that humans are particularly moral. We are animalistic. After all, we are apes. I believe what makes humans human is that we have the ability to reason to a very high level and that we have more complex emotional responses which are further specified by our ability to use language and reason.

To put it simply mankind is not humane. It merely is very intelligent. So what is our existence really about then since your point about morality is clearly a complete fallacy. Our existence is contingent upon our physicality. By this I mean our unique DNA and our physical construction.

You have provided us with a confusing argument about morality and humanity. I ask you: How does this prove that existence is about thinking about the wider universe? As this debate progresses, it seems your argument sounds more like one of Jesus' parables about being your brother's keeper rather than actually proving that existence is about this.

This question is not about opinion. What you are really saying is that you want people to consider the essence of their existence as being about being introspective and open minded. What you want is not what is true. In fact, if we can work out what really is true then we can focus more clearly on deciding how to live our lives morally. I am a passionate Darwinian and I believe strongly in atheism however I am not a moral naturalist. I do believe in the principles of some Biblical and Qur'anic moral messages.

Ultimately, the essence of human existence is that we physically exist. I have already proven that fact in this debate. I have also shown that humankind is not humane and that what makes us human is our reasoning and physical nature not our morality. Where we clash is that you believe that because you want us to think that existence is about introspection this then means that existence is about introspection and extrospection. This is not the case. Humans are animals. We are built to survive and expand. Morality is a evolved mechanism that aids us to do this. Morality actually exists in many animals - not just us. We are not designed to exist with one another within one's self. It may not be convenient especially if you are religious but it is undoubtedly true. That is what science and logical reasoning has shown.

Professor Brian Cox is also a fantastic and intelligent academic by the way. I find it incredibly unfair for you to portray him as stupid. His understanding of scientific reasoning greatly outweighs that of both you and me.
Debate Round No. 4
2far4u2CharlesDarwin

Pro

So then I take it that you reject most if not all of the secondhand information that I have shared with you and with also the hidden Teachings of Jesus from Thomas's recording. Or didn't you even watch it?

Maybe your hardcore atheist leaders that have become fence sitters might just sway or dull your enthusiasm to be what you claim to be.

Cox:

Dawkins:

Hawkins:

LoveRichardDawkins asks and stats
So what is our existence really about then since your point about morality is clearly a complete fallacy. Our existence is contingent upon our physicality. By this I mean our unique DNA and our physical construction.

2far4u2CharlesDarwin replies
Spiritual growth Pick your salutation is it an allusion an illusion or a delusion the less I look the more I see and the more I see the less I look. Existence creator is nature in all it's forms.

YouLoveRichardDawkins asks and implies.
You have provided us with a confusing argument about morality and humanity. I ask you: How does this prove that existence is about thinking about the wider universe? As this debate progresses, it seems your argument sounds more like one of Jesus' parables about being your brother's keeper rather than actually proving that existence is about this.

2far4u2CharlesDarwin replies
When did I imply any thing about a wider universe? So for what your misleading question may refer to I suppose. Human and humane. As for being my brothers keeper do I condone inhumane acts that we do upon each other? NO I DO NOT.

A long long time ago we come down from the trees and found sticks then rocks to kill one and other and then we found empathy and humility and sympathy and learnt that if you don't try and kill me then I won't have to consider killing you before you have the chance to kill me. then copper bronze steel atomic and now we cooperate as not to push the big red button that looks green to so so many that science created without any consideration apart from if we don't do it to them then they will do it to us and guess what Albert E=mc2 helped over the phone as he wasn't allowed on site to make 3 big f#cking kick a#ss bombs one failed but the others didn't and the testing sites in many countries are still ruined positioned.

Draw the line in the sand not in stone between Inhumane and humane for we Christens of the 7 virtues and are not Catholic's 10 commandments. they are but a guide and should be followed but hey the scriptures have been edited so many times and victors never tell all the story and government tell us 50 years later and narcissistic sociopaths border lining psychopaths rule the world that we exists within.

So get busy with living or get busy dying but at least be humane about it while you try to live up to some realistic expectations instead of trying to live up to everybody else's.

YouLoveRichardDawkins Implies with a fact
In fact, if we can work out what really is true then we can focus more clearly on deciding how to live our lives morally. I am a passionate Darwinian and I believe strongly in atheism however I am not a moral naturalist. I do believe in the principles of some Biblical and Qur'anic moral messages.

2far4u2CharlesDarwin replies
Well good for you knuckle head. A fact is about one inch from a f#ck hole and a muck hole. While every one has an opinion just like everyone has an a#shole we really should keep them both to ourselves shouldn't we?

YouLoveRichardDawkins stats
Where we clash is that you believe that because you want us to think that existence is about introspection this then means that existence is about introspection and extrospection.

2far4u2CharlesDarwin replies
I don't need to as, I don't let want, be my master. I don't give a rats a#ss what you think. living up to your own exceptions is hard enough, trying to live up to everybody else's is impossible and where have I implied any of my expectations upon you personally apart from when you wouldn't reply within comments as to be more so acquainted with you as your profile leads you to be inconspicuous. This advice that is second hand as all is that matters is the wisdom to be able to comprehend.

So this seconded hand information, praise our existence creator by looking for the nature of ourselves within our self while glorifying our existence creators nature with rational reasoning not logical reasoning.

Ignorant arrogant atheist scientists claim to use logical reasoning and so do as long as it has no credibility as to receive a noble prize for stupidity. While falling continual upon a monotone abuse flaw that cripples any consideration of faith while going into a dark room looking for a black cat, knowing that it is there because of its meow while rejecting any religious humane contributions towards one and other as to go blindly without any emphatic attributes of there own proving that science without religion is inhumane.

YouLoveRichardDawkins claims
We are not designed to exist with one another within one's self. It may not be convenient especially if you are religious but it is undoubtedly true. That is what science and logical reasoning has shown.

2far4u2CharlesDarwin replies
Fail dot org. We rely are designed buy nature and now even Poindexter's with the thickest off spectacles are considering that within our DNA there are many key intricacies that have been switched off. Please tell me with your logical reasoning of the supposed DNA molecule chain that fused together to separate us from monkeys.

Here is why it is a logical fallacy: https://answersingenesis.org...

YouLoveRichardDawkins humility
Professor Brian Cox is also a fantastic and intelligent academic by the way. I find it incredibly unfair for you to portray him as stupid. His understanding of scientific reasoning greatly outweighs that of both you and me.

2far4u2CharlesDarwin asks why you speak for me as to drag me down with your own stupidity and all atheist scientists that have profiteered from misguiding the children of yesterday and of today. Also they have no remorse what so ever not even an apology to offer. While people like you glorify the parasitic wasps that they are.

Ps if you would like to know me better then you think you do then have a look at what I give freely away as a gift is a gift that is past on as a gift. https://sites.google.com...

Peace be with you. All praise and glory belong to our existence creator. Amen.
LoveRichardDawkins

Con

Well 2far4u2CharlesDarwin, you really are an complete creationist nutcase.
You lost all credibility in this debate when you responded to my reasonable questions by regurgitating the same non-sensical rhetoric you previously spouted during this debate.
You lost all credibility in this debate when you attacked scientists claiming that they have misguided generations of children and tried to claim that the supernatural was a logical explanation for things scientists can't explain.
You lost all credibility in this debate when you hilariously mentioned DNA, revealing your complete contempt for the scientific method and utter ignorance concerning how evolution works.
But you lost the most credibility when you cited "answers in genesis" as a reliable source to support your argument.

As this debate has continued I have realised that you, as a debater, deserve absolutely no legitimacy. Your english is either just down-right awful or you have absolutely no regard for grammar and spelling. I would be amazed if most of the audience can even understand your arguments. Furthermore, your incessant use of profanity really undermines your moronic illusion that you have the moral high ground. I may be a 'parasitic wasp' but I never used curse words towards you nor did I arrogantly dismiss some of the smartest and most prolific scientists and academics in the world just because I disagreed with them. As this debate has progressed, one thing has become clear - not that your arguments are strong, nor that you use evidence and reliable sources to back up your claim, not that you engage with what has been said nor even that you use logic, but that you are an unreasonable and irrational bible-bashing nutcase. Answers in genesis is one of the most illegitimate, lying, hateful, biased, anti-scientific money-making exploits I have ever come across. They frame the likes of Ken Ham as some kind of legitimate 'scientist' (laughs loudly). I ask you: which legitimate scientist believes that the world is 6000 years old? Do you believe this? which legitimate scientist believes that climate change doesn't exist? Do you believe this? Answers in genesis disgustingly and stealthily pretends that they are somehow scientific when they actually have complete disregard for the principle of empirical evidence and the scientific method. And since you smeared the scientific community for misleading children and even dared to say that they should apologise, how about you call upon 'answers in genesis' and other homophobic, islamophobic, anti-factual, hateful, evangelical, lie-machine organisations like it to apologise for misleading millions of Americans and others round the world to believe in utter fairy story nonsense. Which, by the way, not even the catholic church, nor the archbishops of most churches believe in either. In actual fact, to win this debate I don't actually have to even argue my case strongly because it has become so blindingly clear that you have no regard for fact, evidence nor reason and therefore you and your nonsense argument should be automatically dismissed as completely irrational, unreasonable codswallop. I ask: what could ever persuade you? The answer - nothing. You believe literally in a 2000 year old book. Now you, my "friend", can never be reasoned with.

However, I am a believer in arguing any case fully no matter how completely illegitimate and unreasonable the opposition is. So let me explain why I have won this debate. I will summarise. In order for me to have won this debate I have to have proven that existence is not about existing with one another in one's self. Therefore, the burden of proof rests with you. The owness is on you to prove that existence is about such things. So what explanation did you provide us with? Well the answer is - very little. The only argument I could find amongst the rubble of fallacies and contradictions was that our ability to realise that we should be moral shows that existence is about existing with one another within oneself. This I have shown to be non-sensical. Humans are not especially moral. Unsurprisingly, we, like all animals, are bred for survival and so are animalistic. This is empirically true whether Ken Ham agrees with it or not. You can't argue against fact. Therefore, our primary goal is not morality or living with others but survival. The fact we are moral is an evolved mechanism to aid our survival. Humans are also extremely evil and by your own admission we struggle to learn, from our history, that such evil is bad. As a result your claim is utterly fallacious and falls down.

This should have been game over for team irrational, but no. I even offered an alternative explanation based upon empirical scientific evidence. That is that our existence is everything to do with physical matter. We can prove our existence with the fact that we are further able to conduct reliable, repeated observations and that we can successfully test and prove the existence of things in the real world. This, my friend, is science. Furthermore, the unique existence of the essence of humanity is still contingent upon our physical construction and our DNA. And since you laughably mentioned DNA in the same sentence as answers in genesis I digress. There is, in case you didn't know, something called evidence. Now evidence in science relies upon repeated observation and testing. When ape and human DNA is concerned there is an overwhelming body evidence that shows that we are related and that 2 chromosomes fused. Just look at the human and chimpanzee genome, when biologists unravelled it it irrefutably backed up the tree of life and darwinian evolution. If that isn't enough for you (if anything will ever convince you of fact) then just ask any REPUTABLE SCIENTIST what they know about DNA and they will back the overwhelming, evidence based consensus that our chromosomes fused naturally as part of the process of evolution. This makes my case that our existence is about our physical makeup even stronger. All human attributes are coded for in DNA. It is the single biggest influence on who we are. If existence is not really about that then what is it about?

So in conclusion. I have won this debate because my opponent has failed to provide any logical explanations to support his claim. Furthermore, his claims are not based upon fact and science but the bible - that is NOT evidence. The one remotely reasonable argument he made was on the human condition. However, my response that humans are not actually that moral and that we are built to survive showed that his argument is false. Moreover, my alternative, fact based explanation that existence is all contingent on our physical nature, which can be proved, and that our human nature is reliant on our DNA and physical environment has shown that this is a much more reasonable and logical explanation for the essence of existence. No - existence is not what you want it to be- it is what is true. And what is true is that you provided no evidence or reason to explain your claim. We like to think that human existence is all about be introspective and moral. But in reality, it is not. Yes we should care about others and lead a moral life but we should at least be honest with ourselves and admit that science and reason have shown that existence is really about the natural, physical world.

Voters, make the right choice during these 10 days. Do not be convinced by the thread-bare, fallacious raw claims of side irrational. See their complete illegitimacy, their LITERAL belief in the bible rather than science and moreover their ridiculous association with completely anti-scientific, hateful lie-preachers. I trust you as sensible, rational people to not vote on the side of lies and explanationless claims but to vote on the side of logic and fact.

Thank you, this has certainly been an entertaining debate.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
I trust you as sensible, rational people rofl all that will vote upon this site are stupid f#ucking atheists.
Or bigot Catholics.

Upon this road of lest forget, we meet another with no regret to ask our eyes that sting us so, the how's or why's of constant sorrow. We stumble across a justly act to see us through a humble fact that lies within mercy's grace, that is the way of mummies safe. Let us stray beyond this funny space. With love and faith towards a nicer place.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
It"s All in Your Head
There are added benefits to focusing on people rather than problems"

"your product becomes an experience.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
"Existence is to exists with one and other within ones self, is it not?"
Hmm. Then you did create a problem...That was never there...
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
Does Polly need a cracker? Engage brain before operating keyboard.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Hmm. Then you did create a problem...That was never there...
"Existence is to exists with one and other within ones self, is it not?"
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
So now your being a pest canis another parasitic wasp that Charles Darwinisms hide behind as to mask there own little insecurities of inhumane disobedience's of the 7 virtues that christens at least try to live up to. Not real sure about secular one though.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Hmm. Then you did create a problem...That was never there...
"Existence is to exists with one and other within ones self, is it not?"
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
candis go and play with your parasitic wasp will you. Please your making me laugh to much and I have a live one here on the hock line and sinker here. This might just take awhile the narcissist isn't commenting as to get to know if this is the real D#ck or knot he or she is as I know an atheist so that's a start.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
As not to waste a post in this debate please explain to me what sort of atheist are you a true atheist or an unsure atheist? As to say if our existence creator was standing in fount of you in all glory would you fall to your knees and give just praise for our existence creators deliverance?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.