Atheism v.s Theism

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 89
#61
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What is sacrificial love? 
What did god sacrifice?
In this specific case, it is sacrificing something that you love for the love of others.
In Christianity God scarified his Son and put the burden of death upon him. 
But were you not adamant and say:  "I'm not here to start a conversation about the Christain God, that is a topic for another time". #1


"IF" ?  Well, first off you haven't shown me any evidence of the existence of a god , good. loving or otherwise..
We have literally been talking about evidence of the existence of a God. Morality. We are talking about that specific one right now. 
But you haven't shown any evidence for god nor have you offered any evidence of gods Morality?  You are going in circles. Simply saying god is good and "good is by definition is god" simply doesn't cut it ,my friend. You are making statements. 

Second, you still haven't show a single example of god or his "good" works proving he is "good". What you have done is invented your own definition of the word "good" and asserted that the definition of good is- god.
You're putting God into categorical terms. 
No/ But appears that you have done exactly that simply by telling us that the definition of "good is god". 


You're also telling me that in order for God to be good, he has to do good works? 

No, I am asking YOU to show me evidence of gods goodness. You have made the claim that god is "by definition-good".  


Man doesn't even need to do good works in order to obtain eternal life. 

Which god has offered that?  


So why should God be held to that standard?

Well it  depends on which god you are actually referring ,  so wouldn't god the father of all mankind lead by example? Are we no to follow his example?




Heck, why do you have the authority to hold God to a categorically human standard?
Get the fk off your high horse sunshine. If I am to follow someones assumed "good nature"  I would like to see some examples of what "good" is.


Also, you say I invented my own definition of the word God, then prove it. What is the definition then if mine is just made up?

FKME.  You are really stupid aren't you? Do you not read what you yourself have written? 

LOOK>>>

Stephen wrote: Define the word good, for us.
YouFound_Lxam wrote: God.
And I know that seems like I am joking, but I am not. 

God is the definition of goodness. He defines it. You can't get objective good from anywhere else. #40
Are you going to deny that you wrote the above? 



Again you have only made a statement and not shown a single example of god or The Trinity and his good nature.
You didn't ask me to show an example of the Trinity. You asked me:
What is "his nature" and show an example of his good nature?

I responded with the answer to the first question with:
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 persons in one nature.
Ok, so show me examples of either these entities displaying their good nature? And from where you got your sources.



How?
To repeat myself:
An eternal relationship. 
An eternal loving bond.

But you haven't given a single example of either have you.


Indeed they can. And without the interference or influence or command and instruction of a god. 
Without the command is correct, but the rest unfortunately no.

God interferes in our hearts, and influences creation. He also instructs moral law, and that is what guides people to do good things. 

You are simply making statements ........again.  Where is your evidence that supports all of your claims and your sources?  


Topic's author
#62
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
But were you not adamant and say:  "I'm not here to start a conversation about the Christain God, that is a topic for another time". #1
And you brought up. If you were to continue to make comments and questions about Christianity, I would have not continued the conversation.\

But you haven't shown any evidence for god nor have you offered any evidence of gods
Two words:
Moral Law

 Morality?  You are going in circles. Simply saying god is good and "good is by definition is god" simply doesn't cut it ,my friend. You are making statements. 
God is good, because objective good can only exist if God exists. 

No/ But appears that you have done exactly that simply by telling us that the definition of "good is god". 
But objective good isn't a human category. If you want to talk specifically about objective good, then we aren't talking about a humanly made category. 

You are talking about a human category, when you make the assumption that: 
Works = Good. And that God must do works in order to be good. 

No, I am asking YOU to show me evidence of gods goodness. You have made the claim that god is "by definition-good".  
Yes. Because in order for us to have an objective good, there must be an objective law, which in turn has to have an objective law giver. A mind before ours. A greater one.

Therefore, God must obtain "goodness" in order for the concept of objective good to exist for us. 

Which god has offered that?
The Christian God, but we will stop it there because that's getting into specific territory. 

Well it  depends on which god you are actually referring ,  so wouldn't god the father of all mankind lead by example? Are we no to follow his example?
Thats getting into specifics. I'm simply only arguing the existence of God in this forum. Not the specific one. 

 If I am to follow someones assumed "good nature"  I would like to see some examples of what "good" is.
Alright. God. There you go. There's your example. 

You are really stupid aren't you? Do you not read what you yourself have written? 
You can think my definition is bad. But if you can't provide a better one yourself, then you're yelling from the bottom of the cliff. 

Ok, so show me examples of either these entities displaying their good nature? And from where you got your sources.
I apologies for bringing up the Trinity. That is irrelevant. 

But you haven't given a single example of either have you.
Again, Triune. My mistake. 


#63
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How much evidence would you need to believe otherwise? How much evidence would be enough? 
A claim of infinite scope requires evidence spanning infinity.

Finite beings cannot have infinite evidence.

All that we could ever possibly know is that a being which always knows more than us and always has power over our perceptions holds sway no matter where we go.


This is one of the profound themes found in a few places, foremost in my head being the stargate fictional universe. What is a god? How do you know you aren't dealing with a demon?
#64
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
GOD is good with an O missing.

Good is GOD with an extra O.

Good GOD is a exclamation of surprise.

As is Jesus Christ.

Stored data, converted into contrived sounds and understandable noise, or symbols presented as a visually appreciable narrative.

As far as we know, nothing more nothing less.

Blah Blah Blah.


And atheism is theism with an A at the beginning.
#65
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But were you not adamant and say:  "I'm not here to start a conversation about the Christain God, that is a topic for another time". #1
And you brought up. If you were to continue to make comments and questions about Christianity, I would have not continued the conversation.\

I am talking about  god. It was YOU that brought in and started to converse about the Christian god. It was YOU that spoke of the "sacrifice of his son" HERE>#60 Saying : "In Christianity God scarified his Son and put the burden of death upon him."#60 

It was also YOU that brought into this conversation the CHRISTIAN trinity!! HERE> #48 saying: " the nature of god is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are 3 persons in one nature".





But you haven't shown any evidence for god nor have you offered any evidence of gods morality?
Two words:
Moral Law
OK. Now let us see your examples of "gods moral law" and your sources.



 Morality?  You are going in circles. Simply saying god is good and "good is by definition is god" simply doesn't cut it ,my friend. You are making statements. 
God is good, because objective good can only exist if God exists. 
OK. So again; show us examples of "gods good" instead of simply making statements and unsupported claims.



No/ But appears that you have done exactly that simply by telling us that the definition of "good is god". 
But objective good isn't a human category. If you want to talk specifically about objective good, then we aren't talking about a humanly made category. 
OK, so show us examples of "gods good" with sources.  You see, you keep repeating your claims but appear to be seriously lacking in supporting evidence.  


No, I am asking YOU to show me evidence of gods goodness. You have made the claim that god is "by definition-good".  
Yes. Because in order for us to have an objective good, there must be an objective law, which in turn has to have an objective law giver. A mind before ours. A greater one.  Therefore, God must obtain "goodness" in order for the concept of objective good to exist for us. 
Who said "there must be an objective law"!? 



Man doesn't even need to do good works in order to obtain eternal life.
Which god has offered that?
The Christian God, but we will stop it there because that's getting into specific territory. 
So once again you have brought into this conversation the christian god. You see you attempted from the off  to discuss "god" without discussing the "god" that YOU yourself believe in and follow. And have -or should have- come to the realisation that it is impossible for you to do.
 


Well it  depends on which god you are actually referring ,  so wouldn't god the father of all mankind lead by example? Are we no to follow his example?
Thats getting into specifics. I'm simply only arguing the existence of God in this forum. Not the specific one. 
Ok. So where is your evidence for the existence of"god"?  Up to this point is all you have done is make statements that simply don't hold water, ludofl3x has clearly pointed out the many flaws in your"arguments".


 If I am to follow someones assumed "good nature"  I would like to see some examples of what "good" is.
Alright. God. There you go. There's your example. 

But that is only a word to the atheist, it is not  in any way, shape or form an example of "gods good nature" with evidence and sources. So where are the examples of "gods good nature"? And mores the point  what are YOUR  sources .



You are really stupid aren't you? Do you not read what you yourself have written? 
You can think my definition is bad.

So at least you have admitted that you invented the definition. AFTER asking me to Prove  that you had actually had said that HERE> #60  Which I did HERE> #61



Ok, so show me examples of either these entities displaying their good nature? And from where you got your sources.
I apologies for bringing up the Trinity. That is irrelevant. 

Doesn't answer the question nor oblige my request for examples of gods "good nature" on display.   You are making arguments and claims that god exists but when ask for  evidence and your sources, you simply say "god,  there you go".  Do you not see how pathetic that is , not to mention childish.




But you haven't given a single example of either have you.
Again, Triune. My mistake. 

But you have just said the "triune" is irrelevant.  It obviously isn't to you or your own beliefs is it?  Otherwise you simply wouldn't have even mentioned it nor brought it into the conversation as an "example" of the "nature of god", TWICE! would you? HERE>#48 and HERE #60.

Look, you are a Christian, you started this thread with the christian god clearly in mind but for reasons known only to yourself have pretended it wasn't about the Christian god at all.  Indeed, the first words you wrote in your op were:

"I'm not here to start a conversation about the Christain God",#1

If that truly be the case then which  god did you have in mind consider that YOU have SPECIFICALY excluded the god of Christians?






#66
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
Having no belief in gods/having a belief in no gods is the same difference. Like saying half full, half empty. You get the same value.
Having no belief towards proposition X, and believing proposition X is false are two very different things. One is an assertion, the other is not.

Right now there is a man in Texas who has been detained in connection with a murder. Do you believe he is guilty or do you believe he is innocent?

If you have any basic understanding of critical thinking, your answer would be "neither". You can't form a rational opinion on that to which you have no valid information.

You are right that believing God does not exist and not holding any belief regarding his existence is the same on a practical level, that's why it is useless to define atheism as the belief in God's nonexistence. You are sperating people into two categories that serves no purpose, other than to make yourself feel better because you can't meet your burden of proof. 
#67
Existential_Ruminations
Existential_Ruminations's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4
0
0
3
Existential_Ruminations's avatar
Existential_Ruminations
0
0
3
I'll bite. I believe God exists on account of Aristotle's argument for the unmoved mover as further explicated by St. Thomas Aquinas in both the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. 

Aristotle uses the term we translate as motion but it more accurately means "change" of any kind. As the argument's chain of reasoning goes, we observe change in the world around us. Change occurs because things in the world exist presently in one manner and yet are capable of being in another manner (potential vs actual). A cup of hot coffee gradually cools as the temperature in a room brings it down for example. We all observe changes like this occurring every day. We also observe that no potency ever brings itself to a state of actuality. A candle might possibly be a pool of wax, but it will remain a solid substance until heat is introduced to it. Now all things in the world are either in a state of potentiality or actuality. When something is in a state of actuality it is only because something acts to make it so, just as I am suspended above the floor because the chair beneath me sustains my position, which in turn is sustained by the floor beneath it, and so on and so forth. 

Now we have two possibilities of explaining where all this change comes from. Either there is an infinite series of changers and things changed in the present moment, or there is a finite chain that terminates in one ultimate cause of change, itself being unchanged. 

However, an infinite regression in the present simply isn't a possible explanation because to posit such does not explain where the principle of change actually comes from. To illustrate why, consider explaining a train's movement by way of infinite boxcars. One boxcar is moved because it is moved by another which in turn is moved by another, so on to infinity. In such a regress, the causes of change are all instrumental and only instrumental, hence even postulating an infinite number of them still leaves us at a loss to explain their movement. That is unless we terminate the infinite change with a principle cause, that being the locomotive engine compartment. 

Because an infinite regress is not possible, we must terminate the chain with one principle cause of all change. This being must be purely actual and not at all potential. It must be external to the world as all things in the world are made up of potentialities. It must be omnipotent in that it presently sustains all things. It must immutable as it has no potentialities. Finally, it must resemble intelligence as it grounds all intelligent states of the universe and further directs universal operations toward intelligent ends. This being we understand to be God.
#68
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
I'm going with Stephen Hawking. He said during an interview with El Mundo in 2014: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
#69
Existential_Ruminations
Existential_Ruminations's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4
0
0
3
Existential_Ruminations's avatar
Existential_Ruminations
0
0
3
-->
@FLRW
It seems to me that Prof. Hawking's argument is logically invalid. His conclusion doesn't follow from his reasoning. Furthermore, the question of God's existence is a philosophical question. Science deals only with the physical whereas questions such as "why is there something rather than nothing" is a metaphysical question. 
#70
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Existential_Ruminations
The best answer we have at this point is that the Universe emerged spontaneously from a random quantum fluctuation in some sort of primordial quantum vacuum, the scientific equivalent of "nothing." However, this quantum vacuum is a very loaded nothing: it assumes the whole machinery of quantum field theory, the modern description of how elementary particles of matter interact with one another, was already in operation.
In the quantum realm, even the lowest energy state, the "vacuum," is not empty. Even if the energy of a quantum system is zero, it is never really zero due to the inherent quantum fluctuations about this state. A zero energy quantum state is as impossible as a perfectly still lake, with absolutely no disturbances on its surface. This quantum jitteriness amounts to fluctuations on the value of the energy; if one of these fluctuations is unstable it may grow big, like a soap bubble that blows itself up. The energy remains zero on average because of a clever interplay between the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of attractive gravity. This is the result that physicists like Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Mikio Kaku and others speak of when they state that the "universe came out of quantum nothingness," or something to that extent.
#71
Existential_Ruminations
Existential_Ruminations's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4
0
0
3
Existential_Ruminations's avatar
Existential_Ruminations
0
0
3
-->
@FLRW
The question of whether the universe had a beginning is an interesting one for sure, however more fundamentally we can pose the question for the present moment. If you refer to my previous post, all change in the universe is a composite of act and potency but no single object contains the principle of change. Furthermore, we can see that even all objects together or an infinite number of them cannot account for a principle of change. Hypothetically it is possible that things have always existed in some state even if it is "quantum nothingness" but the question of hierarchical order is an entirely different one. The only way to explain the order of all change in the world is to propose something that is purely actual and not itself a composite entity of act and potency, as things with potencies require their own prior causes.
#72
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
@Existential_Ruminations
Blah Blah Blah.


Perhaps.

A Universe is the re-initiation of a previous Universe.

There could have been billions of them.


So GOD is matter that possesses the ability to evolve.

And thinking blob and it's successors necessarily develop.

Perhaps.


Why?

Blah Blah Blah.
#73
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The Big Bang's origins did not have a natural origin as we know understand natural. It supposedly had a supernatural origin. 
A more accurate way to say this is we don't know the origin of the big bang.  Anyone 'supposing' the second sentence is making a leap that would do with some justification. The Big Bang is not in any way a supernatural theory: at one point all of that stuff was concentrated in a singularity, and at another point expanded rapidly, which continues to this day. None of that requires magic or supernatural powers. What was 'before' the big bang is unknowable, but that's not the big bang. 

Science has not even been able to recreate RNA. In order to be able to produce any type of life, you need RNA. Once you figure that out, its a billion steps more to figuring out life. But we haven't even gotten close to RNA yet. Not even close. 
Okay, but amino acids are the proto-protein, and we only see those synthesizing in experiments done within the last 100 years. RNA was discovered within the last 80 years. Saying we should have done it by now, and therefore it's not possible, isn't really being fair to how much time such an experiment would require. And you only have to have a single cell organism acquire the drive to reproduce, the ability to do so, and the drive to survive happen ONCE. Once it does, absent any predator organism, then it very quickly becomes the dominant organism. As any first organism would. I'm asking why any of that requires a set of gods. 

If you want me to provide rational evidence as to why I believe in God, I also expect you to provide the same for your philosophy. Just like I can't say," Well I don't understand how God works, so I just have to trust it", you can't say," Well I don't know all about science so I just have to trust it."
You want me to provide rational evidence as to why I am unconvinced at the idea of gods existing? Besides I don't see any evidence of that? I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps you can help, actually: what was the evidence you used to rule out the existence of the gods I presume you do not believe in? As a Christian, how did you rationally rule out the existence of Zeus? Or Ganesh? Perhaps by explaining your reasoning, I can find a way to explain how "no evidence" requires some more rationale than is evident on its face. I trust science because it works, because there's concrete, objective evidence. 

Why specifically is society forming a good thing though? Why is societal progression good?
I didn't say they were necessarily, but my answer would be that these two things have improved the lives of every person on earth. We're not 8 billion resource hungry cave dwellers for this very reason. "Why is progress good" is quite a question, though. 

So there is a standard. A community standard. 
Yes, I suppose that's a way to say it. I think you're seeking to take the meaning of "good" and "bad" and obfuscate the actual argument by saying neither one of us can know objectively what is one, or the other. As someone who does not accept there's any "objective" good or bad, that's not my argument at all, so those word games aren't really effective that way. People all over the world, today, disagree on what is good and what is bad, on issues large and small, and what's bad today (like calling black people the N word) was once completely fine, so it changes over time, too. That would lead me to believe good and bad are just matters of community opinion. I'm still unsure how this connects to any gods. You've made no progress on this front, as someone who believes in (thus far for purposes of this conversation) a set of gods. 
#74
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Existential_Ruminations

Because an infinite regress is not possible, we must terminate the chain with one principle cause of all change. This being must be purely actual and not at all potential. It must be external to the world as all things in the world are made up of potentialities. It must be omnipotent in that it presently sustains all things. It must immutable as it has no potentialities. Finally, it must resemble intelligence as it grounds all intelligent states of the universe and further directs universal operations toward intelligent ends. This being we understand to be God.
This assumes an infinite regress isn't possible, without conceding that we can't know that at all. Your boxcar analogy doesn't allow for the possibility that you can't see the end of the train in either direction, so you assume that on one end or another there's an engine. This may be right or wrong. Your way out of this looks like "since I can't see the first or last car, and you can't see the first or last car, then we agree there is a first or last car." I don't agree with you. Demonstrate there's a first or last car, or we both must agree that all we see in either direction are a bunch of box cars with no apparent beginning or end. That's one problem, but then you completely jump the tracks and make these claims about intelligence, and to top it off, you just assign all that to a character who only exists in stories from the last ~5000 years (of 3.5Bn earth, ~14Bn universe years), presuming you actually mean capital G god, as opposed to generic nebulous 'god' that seems to have disappeared after the big bang ignition.

Even if you were granted that SOMETHING hit the ignition on the big bang, you've made zero progress toward defining that something through any logical or rational means. IT sounds all academic, but it's just a disguise. 
#75
Existential_Ruminations
Existential_Ruminations's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4
0
0
3
Existential_Ruminations's avatar
Existential_Ruminations
0
0
3
-->
@ludofl3x
and to top it off, you just assign all that to a character who only exists in stories from the last ~5000 years (of 3.5Bn earth, ~14Bn universe years), presuming you actually mean capital G god, as opposed to generic nebulous 'god' that seems to have disappeared after the big bang ignition.
Per the forum introduction, this conversation is not specifically about the Christian God, however the being I have described would have many of the attributes of said Christian God. But defending that position is beyond the scope and rules of this forum as I understand them, so this objection is clearly attacking a straw man. The position I defend is classical theism. 

This assumes an infinite regress isn't possible, without conceding that we can't know that at all. Your boxcar analogy doesn't allow for the possibility that you can't see the end of the train in either direction, so you assume that on one end or another there's an engine. This may be right or wrong. Your way out of this looks like "since I can't see the first or last car, and you can't see the first or last car, then we agree there is a first or last car." I don't agree with you. Demonstrate there's a first or last car, or we both must agree that all we see in either direction are a bunch of box cars with no apparent beginning or end.
It was never my claim that there is a first car because we can’t see the end of the train of boxcars. In fact, I conceded for sake of argument the possibility of an infinite regress of boxcars in order to explain that even if we did observe such a thing it would clearly be absurd as an explanation of the movement of the train. In a scenario where the movement of one boxcar explains the movement of the subsequent boxcar, postulating an infinite number of boxcars fails to explain where the movement actually comes from because the boxcars are only instruments of change. The principle or source of change cannot be located in either an individual boxcar or in the collective.

Consider another example. We know that the light from the moon is only a reflection of the sun. We explain the moon’s light by way of its principle source which is the sun. But say we had a series of moons each reflecting the light off of each other. Even if we had an infinite number of moons reflecting light we would not arrive at an explanation without the sun or other source of light. 

Even if you were granted that SOMETHING hit the ignition on the big bang, you've made zero progress toward defining that something through any logical or rational means. IT sounds all academic, but it's just a disguise.
I’m not arguing for a finite past so the point about the Big Bang is attacking a strawman. Furthermore your accusation of an academic disguise is just poisoning the well. 
#76
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ludofl3x

 "IT sounds all academic, but it's just a disguise. "
   
      Tru-dat!

#77
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You don't get to choose a name and choose your own definition for it. 
Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods: (Oxford Languages).

Suck it up. 
Telling me I don't get to cherry pick my definition while you cherry pick your definition.

Two can play this game:

Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

The greater question is why do you feel like you need to define atheism as a belief system?
#78
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
YouFound_Lxam wrote: You don't get to choose a name and choose your own definition for it. 
Atheist: a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods: (Oxford Languages).

Suck it up. 
Double_R wrote: Telling me I don't get to cherry pick my definition while you cherry pick your definition.

Yep, Double_R.  He will make up his own definitions god and good and then deny that he did.

As he did here>>#61

#79
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
"Actually, the word "atheists" includes all atheists. Thats how word categories work by law of identity. Atheists = all atheists"

Not when I use it it doesn't.
For example if I say there are people on that bus. It doesn't mean all people of an entire city or the world. 

There's more than one person on that bus which you say people. When you say people or persons, it can apply to every one that is a person or can apply to just more than one. Instead of verifying which one, you jumped to "all".

Remember plural doesn't mean all. Just more than one. 

#80
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
I don't believe he is guilty and I do believe he is not guilty is the same value. This is my point.
#81
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mall
I don't believe he is guilty and I do believe he is not guilty is the same value
Which one of these is the same as "I believe he is innocent"? Either? 
#82
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It looks painful beliving in the god thing and not being able to prove it. 

Fucking ouch. 
Painful and Pointless.
Sooooooo Lucky he did that book thing he did . 
But umm yeah.
' kicks dirt ' 


Good game.
Good game. 
#83
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,632
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Mall
Not when I use it it doesn't.
For example if I say there are people on that bus. It doesn't mean all people of an entire city or the world. 

There's more than one person on that bus which you say people. When you say people or persons, it can apply to every one that is a person or can apply to just more than one. Instead of verifying which one, you jumped to "all".
Remember plural doesn't mean all. Just more than one.
Using words in wrong way to justify using even more words in wrong way doesnt make you right.

Categories are such that you can only have one category labeled "people". Yet you somehow have so many.
#84
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@ludofl3x
That's up to the individual person. My point is on believing not guilty or not believing guilty.
#85
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Mall
Isn't believing not guilty a positive affirmation, and not believing guilty reservation of judgement?
#86
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Hey, if you see people on the bus, do you see people on the bus?

Watch, I get no response .
#87
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,632
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Mall
Hey, if you see people on the bus, do you see people on the bus?
Thats a circular sentence.

#88
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Best.Korea
Scared to say yes to the question.
#89
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,803
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@ludofl3x
Depends on how you look at it. If I don't believe you're not guilty, I have made a judgment. If I believe you are guilty, I have made a judgment.

It's the same judgment. Both statements are the inverse of the other. It's just half full half empty. Either way you have a positive in both those statements. Which is the "guilty" portion which amounts to the same. Half full, you still have half a container. Half empty, you still have half a container. It amounts to the same value.