"Why does everything I say fly over your head? I already said, I'm for the First Amendment. Don't use the black-or-white fallacy: "if you're for the first amendment, you support gays being stoned". Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that you can stone gays if your religion tells you to. Freedom of religion and freedom to do what your religion tells you aren't the same thing. If you don't understand me, read this article:"
You have called me out for a false fallacy and state my argument did not directly show how your position is so flawed. Even your article agrees that laws are more important than the constitution. Your source states:
"The Supreme Court has had to place some limits on the freedom to practice religion." Which means the person in charge values the Supreme Court more than the constitution. If that wasn't the case why the Supreme Court allowed to rule over and absolute. No law means no laws. This article has fooled you into thinking that was not an absolute. When I answer a yes or no question. When I say no I don't mean maybe.
"Allow me to make an analogy"
Read your analogy and it was not that good. No means no not maybe and the United States values the Supreme Court more than the Constitution which is why they are allowed to make laws which contradict the constitution.
Removed what I said here because I made a better point later.
"Safety of the citizens comes first of course, but we ensure safety by banning the crimes themselves, not the beliefs that such crimes are correct."
So you are against the first amendment?
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
So basically me exercising my Religion is stoning gays. You are for that if you are for the 1st amendment.
That explains it. Guess my assumption was partly right. You did watch a YouTube then that was followed up by research. I failed to see how you are doing the same to Trump but lets stick to the things you support first.
"Of course I am for the Civil Rights Act. But remember, the FREEDOM OF RELIGION and the RIGHT TO ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS are two very different things. One is given by the 1st amendment and 1 is not."
Completely ignored my point which shows a contradiction. I will try simpler terms.
If my Religious belief was gays should be stoned. What comes first? The safety of the citizens or freedom of Religion? My Religion is not going to enforce it on you simply stone you. So basically that enforcement part has no part to play in my hypothetical. What do you say to that?
"400,000 illegal immigrants are apprehended (not the amount that cross the border, the amount caught) while crossing the Mexican border annually."
So you don't have data on how many illegal immigrants are in the US. I will move on because you failed to provide proof of undocumented immigrants so now my question would be why should we have a border wall?
"Rich are benefitting more than the poor". Nope, doesn't work that way. Everyone benefits from a better economy. Better economy=more jobs=cheaper products=more businesses=better economy. If taxes are lowered, companies spend more money on their business, which grows the economy."
You completely moved passed from my point of wage stagnation. An economy can still do good even if the poor is still poor. Simply have the rich profiting off the back of the poor. You have not rebutted my claim of wage stagnation. Since I want to move along why should we value a good economy instead of having people have good earning opportunities?
"Paris Agreement is not effective because all it does is oblige countries to do all they can to fight climate change. It doesn't set any limits to pollution, it doesn't punish countries that pollute a lot. It's just a waste of time. The US doesn't need to be in the Paris Agreement to fight climate change."
What do they need instead?
"What is pragmatic? Is making abortion illegal pragmatic? Many countries (Russia, for example) have laws banning abortion after the first 3 months, and only allowing it in medical cases. And it works perfectly fine."
Do you not see the cultural differences between Russia and the US? One has outlawed most of abortion whereas another has it legalised. Simply banning it would not work and how are you going to stop people from aborting babies anyway?
"Wall on Mexican border (relatively cheap way to prevent around half of illegal immigration to US)."
First you must provide evidence of these illegal immigration because I am sure they are undocumented then you would have to provide evidence in how they actually get here. Do you have both?
"Lower taxes for small and large businesses (benefits economy)."
Have you heard of wage stagnation? How is it more important to have a better economy when the rich are benefiting more from it compare to the poor?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
"Leaving Paris Agreement (I think that climate change is a serious problem, but this agreement is not effective)."
Why is it not effective? Do you have something in mind that is more effective?
"Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv (I support Israel)."
Israel an ethnostate you support? Would you support an ethnostate in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Total_population
"I'm pro-life because I don't believe it's moral to kill fetuses that are conscious, unless it's a threat to the mother's health."
Is it pragmatic?
"I'm pro-gun because I think that law-abiding citizens owning guns is a good way to stop crime and for them to defend themselves."
Evidence?
"I'm for the 1st Amendment because I think that freedom of speech and religion are necessary for a free society, and it's not up to the government to determine people's beliefs."
You do know there have been laws passed that go against the 1st Amendment right? How about Religious hatred of homosexuals? Are you against a laws that curbs Religious freedom in return for equality? Basically are you for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
"No, I did not become Atheist because I watched a YouTube video."
How did you then?
"agree to disagree."
I have questions I want answers and I would like to know how you would rectify problems I have.
"Nothing I support conflicts with my atheism."
I never said it conflicted. My problem was more so you were capable I am assuming to rationally think about your position yet you support Trump. I don't see how a single rational person can defend Trump. So my guess you had a severe lapse of judgement.
"I'm pro-life? That's because I don't like future babies being killed."
This can be more reasonable if you broke it down pragmatically and theoretically.
"I'm pro-gun? That's because I believe in the 2nd Amendment."
Wow great argument. Change 2nd Amendment to God and now you are a theist. Really difficult for me to believe you rationally thought about your position instead maybe being born an atheist or liked other people telling you what to think instead of figuring it out for yourself.
"I'm for 1st Amendment? Wow, what a shocker. That is so unatheist, right?"
Why are you?
"I'm for gay marriage? How does that conflict with atheism?"
Have a reason why you support this instead of making a strawman. If you actually read what I said I never said atheism conflicts with being a Trump supporter. My position is for you to I am assuming rationally evaluate your position on God but not have the same standard for Trump makes it seem like you are logically inconsistent. Maybe you didn't use logic and became an atheist on a whim while watching a YouTube video.
"I support SOME of Donald Trump's policies? Wow, I must be Christian and Republican."
Can you name me one of the policies you support and why?
Your potential opponent said this "unless you refer to scripture that is not possible"
That to me doesn't sound like he is open to having his mind changed. Bear in mind he doesn't use logic. He uses "spiritual revelation" to get to his point.
Who were you talking to about the free will part?
If it was me. I am not accepting God to be true until you prove it to me. The free will part is a non-issue. A meaningless topic to discuss. If you believe in the Biblical God there is no reason to dispute things in the Bible. If you aren't then yes there are reasons but it is a waste of time since non-Christians should stick to proving God's existence since giving that ground up is definitely a d*mb thing to do. If you really want to waste your time go right ahead and give up ground to a Christian. That part was not directed at you but to anyone who has stumbled upon this message. Have a nice day.
"Logic appertains to scripture as much as it does to human understanding"
Same as "spiritual" understanding. Shame that has little to no evidence existing. Oh well.
"you should have considered what i stated here that scripture is based on logical principals in exposing the metaphysical and spiritual."
Guess your logic must be really different to mine because if I don't know something exists like a "spirit" I would deem it illogical due to not being proven to exist.
Wow.
Can't ground scripture in reality guess it would not be a battle of who made the best argument instead of who had the better feelings or whatever you call "spiritual revelation".
I am going to assume you can't defend it logically which is why you are removing that as a way to make an argument.
"Why not just be nice to everyone?"
Why not be nicer to the higher-ups?
Do you love God more than you love your mother?
"Basically, just be yourself to everyone."
Yourself is meaningless. You weren't you 1 second ago or 1 year ago or yesterday. At that very point you are you until you know you are in with 1 more second of life. No-one is their "self" they are people on a timer waiting to expire.
Why do you this to yourself?
I am sure you have a had a run in with melcharaz enough times that he is not capable of thinking his Religion is wrong.
Are you a masochists?
Do you like pain?
Answer me.
I know a debate is about who can bring the most convincing argument but I do also like debates to be that both members are willing to change their mind.
It sounds better and I did see bsh1 call it DART but I can't be banned for using a different acronym so pick mine.
It is less characters which results in if you continue to be on this site for a long time and said DA rather then DART you would have saved a lot of characters.
Thank me later if you do use DA.
There is a logically inconsistent way of seeing how he got there.
There is also the case where he has pretty much followed YouTubers online and just watched them for answers instead of verifying them to be true. The one that comes to mind where I found someone who is an atheist but always keeps ragging on the left while also not saying he is part of the left is styxhexenhammer666. There are many other examples but I came up with him first. He is an atheist which opposes the Paris climate change deal when Trump decided to withdraw and says really nothing bad about the right. So basically I think he has been watching videos without actually maybe I am wrong or maybe I should verify my sources.
He is really st*pid. I don't see the point in helping people who don't want help.
He is an atheist who supports Donald Trump. Let that sink in.
Even though he is not bound by the Republican by Religion and assuming he used reason to get to the conclusion God exits he fails to see how logically inconsistent he is being with other topics.
These are the things he stated he is for or against
Abortion (i'm pro-life)
Guns (i'm pro-gun)
Does God exist (i'm atheist)
1st amendment (i'm for it)
2nd amendment (i'm for it)
Gay marriage (i'm for it)
How about if my arguments are corrects and I am trying to point out the flaws in their understanding?
Don't you even agree with me here so am I still being a "skeptic" even though you agree with me?
Isn't that the same thing you posted on good music?
I did see it.
"When I realize I'm depressing recently I listen to this some. sit back, close your eyes "
I can't really do this. Have tried to relax but can't really. My mind wanders. I think I can only really relax if I am tired but I don't want to exercise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdpvj_iVAFk
Reminds me on Nier Automata.
Here is my one that resembles it enjoy. I have a bunch because I really find the one that I am looking for but I can give my favourite one that I remember from Nier Automata.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGFOvuOxwuU
Found one that closely resembles what you gave me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRHsEWIC8PI&list=PLc_RJ2laVnkAwYhZ7V8t4n4y-U1zd0fOj
Should get you to a playlist of all Nier Automata songs. I will also put this in good music.
No you weren't you were saying Mark Twain was better without saying you got it wrong.
"I saw it was a Nietzsche quote base on my first google search."
Shame that you forgot about it when you typed in Mark Twain.
"He was a philosopher that heavily infuluenced my life so it's sad that I'd confuse a quote like that. Still"
I like him too. Not really influenced by him too much (because I hardly knowing anything about philosophy) but he is a philosopher that I relatively know. Guess it must be because of nihilism.
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oX2xFo7JA4"
I can't believe you have a link about pessimism. I am losing a debate because I am getting voted against by pro-lifers on DDO. Thank you for reminding me.
"Mark Twain was far superior to Nietzsche so it just stands to reason the he made the quote. These are just facts bro."
Mark Twain did not say that. I typed in what you quoted from Mark Twain and it found Friedrich Nietzsche said it. If Mark Twain did say it it would be on the site. Mine are actual facts sis.
"Since you have refused to move the conversation out of respect for the debaters. I will take that as a defeat for you."
I have a question and you didn't answer it.
Is it an unfair question did I not answer your question?
"You're quite the character Omar. You keep things interesting on here."
I am taking this as a defeat from Wrick-It-Ralph. I have made it easier for you. Simply answer one question.
How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?
Call it what you want.
It is not a loaded question or whatever it maybe instead I tried to make the best question that I had a problem with answering.
I doubt a 10 year old would know what objective means.
"You asked how I know if someone's senses are more right."
So your senses are not more right than a blind person?
"You know what accurate means. Stop being difficult."
Did I ask for the definition or what is it accurate for?
"The act of attempting to prove it is redundant and shows the absurdity in trying to prove it."
False since without knowing our senses to be true we don't have a foundation to have it based on objectivity.
"The contrary is impossible."
I am only asking you to use the same standards as you would for anything else. How do you know your senses are reliable?
"What is truth huh?"
You said the truth stays the same what is the truth?
"your second question is incoherent and irrelevant to the topic."
So even if a person is blind the truth still remains the same?
"You see an apples so you know apples exist"
How do you know that apple is an apple?
"What do you mean what's my point? You're the one who brought it up not me. What's YOUR point?"
What are you trying to say here "Nobody's senses are more right than another persons."
"Correct at being accurate."
Accurate in doing what?
"I will not stop using this as it is a tenant of philosophy. Are you going to tell me to stop using philosophy?"
Self-evident is not evidence. It is a fancy way of saying we accept this premise to be true because we can't prove it.
"Nope, the truth stays the same, the only thing that wavers is your sensory organs as they slowly rot."
What is the truth?
When is the person at peak perceiving the truth?
How do you know it is the truth?
"We don't perceive the world without senses."
Okay then so how do you know your senses are more right than someone else's?
"The only standard I care about is if it gives me accurate information, if it does, then it's reliable."
So you are saying since it is reliable you would deem it correct?
In what way are you saying it is correct?
Is it we ought to see this way or this is reliable there it must be correct?
"That one went entirely over your head. The whole point is that the cracker is a representation of the toast. That's what makes it objective. They're the same thing."
But you can never truly know if that cracker is a toast or might be a cracker. You would have to assume the environment you are in can ascertain something which can give you truth. Am I wrong?
"The alternative isn't no senses. The alternative would be "sense are not reliable" and we can imagine what that would be like."
How else do we perceive the world without senses?
"Lets say the sense are never reliable, that is to say that they are always wrong."
Reliability doesn't mean they are correct.
"to me, the experience will be identical to eating a cracker and no matter what is really happening, the act is not hurting me, and it's keeping me alive."
So even you can't prove to me with a hypothetical that objectivity can be true in whatever form it maybe.
A is eating toast but A objectively is eating crackers.
How would A know A would be eating crackers if everyone on Earth also perceived crackers to be toast?
"If I can demonstrate something consistently and repeatedly to the point where I can make predictions,"
Guess you don't like my blind example.
But we can't test alternatives since we only really have senses and we can't remove them in order to verify if the alternative is true. Blind is lack of senses not no senses.
I am going on by one until we can get some sort of agreement then I will speak about the other 5. Guess you missed me saying it.
"1. That is the proof, if you studied philosophy, you would know that things can be verified by self evidence. The practical demonstration proves their accuracy. If my senses were false, then they wouldn't produce consistent results."
That is not proof. The Big Bang is still a theory which best explains the start of the universe.
The blind person has consistent and repeatable results what makes yours more correct than a blind person's perception.
"1. My senses produce consistent and repeatable results which pragmatically achieve my goals the way I intend them to be achieved. "
I am sorry why are you not proving to me why your initials senses are correct?
"2. When my senses are wrong, they are consistently wrong such that I can tell when they're wrong, therefore, I am able to distinguish between reality and fantasy."
I wasn't speaking about fantasy instead what argument can you make that a blind person has the wrong perception of reality compared to yours?
"3. Notice how it's called an Argumentum Ad Populum and not an Ad Populum Fallacy. Why do you think that is? It's because it's not always a fallacy. My third proof is scientific consensus which is a justified application of the ad populum argument. "
Science have not proved our senses to be true if they have they are liars. No point in using this argument.
"4. I cannot change reality through sheer willpower, therefore it's not part of me."
A blind person can't change their perception using sheer willpower are they wrong?
"5. I cannot deny my reality, even if I close my eyes and scream to ignore it, when I eventually get sick of doing so, I will be forced to again experience my consistent reliable reality."
Still does not state the difference between a blind person's eyesight and a person who isn't blind.
"6. The contrary to this argument is vacuous and does not conform with logic. Therefore, it cannot be the case."
Logic? You would have to assume your senses to be true in order a good enough ground for logic. No one can prove their senses to be true.
"Easy win you say?"
Easy you just made it more complicated.
Any chance of sticking point by point instead of expecting me to debunk 6 arguments? I would go through with all of them but I much rather it be 1 by 1.
"Why does everything I say fly over your head? I already said, I'm for the First Amendment. Don't use the black-or-white fallacy: "if you're for the first amendment, you support gays being stoned". Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that you can stone gays if your religion tells you to. Freedom of religion and freedom to do what your religion tells you aren't the same thing. If you don't understand me, read this article:"
You have called me out for a false fallacy and state my argument did not directly show how your position is so flawed. Even your article agrees that laws are more important than the constitution. Your source states:
"The Supreme Court has had to place some limits on the freedom to practice religion." Which means the person in charge values the Supreme Court more than the constitution. If that wasn't the case why the Supreme Court allowed to rule over and absolute. No law means no laws. This article has fooled you into thinking that was not an absolute. When I answer a yes or no question. When I say no I don't mean maybe.
"Allow me to make an analogy"
Read your analogy and it was not that good. No means no not maybe and the United States values the Supreme Court more than the Constitution which is why they are allowed to make laws which contradict the constitution.
Removed what I said here because I made a better point later.
"Safety of the citizens comes first of course, but we ensure safety by banning the crimes themselves, not the beliefs that such crimes are correct."
So you are against the first amendment?
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
So basically me exercising my Religion is stoning gays. You are for that if you are for the 1st amendment.
That explains it. Guess my assumption was partly right. You did watch a YouTube then that was followed up by research. I failed to see how you are doing the same to Trump but lets stick to the things you support first.
"Of course I am for the Civil Rights Act. But remember, the FREEDOM OF RELIGION and the RIGHT TO ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS are two very different things. One is given by the 1st amendment and 1 is not."
Completely ignored my point which shows a contradiction. I will try simpler terms.
If my Religious belief was gays should be stoned. What comes first? The safety of the citizens or freedom of Religion? My Religion is not going to enforce it on you simply stone you. So basically that enforcement part has no part to play in my hypothetical. What do you say to that?
"400,000 illegal immigrants are apprehended (not the amount that cross the border, the amount caught) while crossing the Mexican border annually."
So you don't have data on how many illegal immigrants are in the US. I will move on because you failed to provide proof of undocumented immigrants so now my question would be why should we have a border wall?
"Rich are benefitting more than the poor". Nope, doesn't work that way. Everyone benefits from a better economy. Better economy=more jobs=cheaper products=more businesses=better economy. If taxes are lowered, companies spend more money on their business, which grows the economy."
You completely moved passed from my point of wage stagnation. An economy can still do good even if the poor is still poor. Simply have the rich profiting off the back of the poor. You have not rebutted my claim of wage stagnation. Since I want to move along why should we value a good economy instead of having people have good earning opportunities?
"Paris Agreement is not effective because all it does is oblige countries to do all they can to fight climate change. It doesn't set any limits to pollution, it doesn't punish countries that pollute a lot. It's just a waste of time. The US doesn't need to be in the Paris Agreement to fight climate change."
What do they need instead?
"What is pragmatic? Is making abortion illegal pragmatic? Many countries (Russia, for example) have laws banning abortion after the first 3 months, and only allowing it in medical cases. And it works perfectly fine."
Do you not see the cultural differences between Russia and the US? One has outlawed most of abortion whereas another has it legalised. Simply banning it would not work and how are you going to stop people from aborting babies anyway?
Continues...
"Wall on Mexican border (relatively cheap way to prevent around half of illegal immigration to US)."
First you must provide evidence of these illegal immigration because I am sure they are undocumented then you would have to provide evidence in how they actually get here. Do you have both?
"Lower taxes for small and large businesses (benefits economy)."
Have you heard of wage stagnation? How is it more important to have a better economy when the rich are benefiting more from it compare to the poor?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/
"Leaving Paris Agreement (I think that climate change is a serious problem, but this agreement is not effective)."
Why is it not effective? Do you have something in mind that is more effective?
"Moving US Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv (I support Israel)."
Israel an ethnostate you support? Would you support an ethnostate in the US?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Total_population
"I'm pro-life because I don't believe it's moral to kill fetuses that are conscious, unless it's a threat to the mother's health."
Is it pragmatic?
"I'm pro-gun because I think that law-abiding citizens owning guns is a good way to stop crime and for them to defend themselves."
Evidence?
"I'm for the 1st Amendment because I think that freedom of speech and religion are necessary for a free society, and it's not up to the government to determine people's beliefs."
You do know there have been laws passed that go against the 1st Amendment right? How about Religious hatred of homosexuals? Are you against a laws that curbs Religious freedom in return for equality? Basically are you for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
"No, I did not become Atheist because I watched a YouTube video."
How did you then?
"agree to disagree."
I have questions I want answers and I would like to know how you would rectify problems I have.
"Nothing I support conflicts with my atheism."
I never said it conflicted. My problem was more so you were capable I am assuming to rationally think about your position yet you support Trump. I don't see how a single rational person can defend Trump. So my guess you had a severe lapse of judgement.
"I'm pro-life? That's because I don't like future babies being killed."
This can be more reasonable if you broke it down pragmatically and theoretically.
"I'm pro-gun? That's because I believe in the 2nd Amendment."
Wow great argument. Change 2nd Amendment to God and now you are a theist. Really difficult for me to believe you rationally thought about your position instead maybe being born an atheist or liked other people telling you what to think instead of figuring it out for yourself.
"I'm for 1st Amendment? Wow, what a shocker. That is so unatheist, right?"
Why are you?
"I'm for gay marriage? How does that conflict with atheism?"
Have a reason why you support this instead of making a strawman. If you actually read what I said I never said atheism conflicts with being a Trump supporter. My position is for you to I am assuming rationally evaluate your position on God but not have the same standard for Trump makes it seem like you are logically inconsistent. Maybe you didn't use logic and became an atheist on a whim while watching a YouTube video.
"I support SOME of Donald Trump's policies? Wow, I must be Christian and Republican."
Can you name me one of the policies you support and why?
I think it is a waste of time to talk to theists.
Your potential opponent said this "unless you refer to scripture that is not possible"
That to me doesn't sound like he is open to having his mind changed. Bear in mind he doesn't use logic. He uses "spiritual revelation" to get to his point.
Who were you talking to about the free will part?
If it was me. I am not accepting God to be true until you prove it to me. The free will part is a non-issue. A meaningless topic to discuss. If you believe in the Biblical God there is no reason to dispute things in the Bible. If you aren't then yes there are reasons but it is a waste of time since non-Christians should stick to proving God's existence since giving that ground up is definitely a d*mb thing to do. If you really want to waste your time go right ahead and give up ground to a Christian. That part was not directed at you but to anyone who has stumbled upon this message. Have a nice day.
"Logic appertains to scripture as much as it does to human understanding"
Same as "spiritual" understanding. Shame that has little to no evidence existing. Oh well.
"you should have considered what i stated here that scripture is based on logical principals in exposing the metaphysical and spiritual."
Guess your logic must be really different to mine because if I don't know something exists like a "spirit" I would deem it illogical due to not being proven to exist.
Ha you agree with me on the only part that is correct.
Keep your illusion that is the soul.
Wow.
Can't ground scripture in reality guess it would not be a battle of who made the best argument instead of who had the better feelings or whatever you call "spiritual revelation".
I am going to assume you can't defend it logically which is why you are removing that as a way to make an argument.
"I am totally "free willing" to change my mind, if @mel can provide a good logical argument."
Sucks that he didn't even use logic. OMEGALUL.
"Why not just be nice to everyone?"
Why not be nicer to the higher-ups?
Do you love God more than you love your mother?
"Basically, just be yourself to everyone."
Yourself is meaningless. You weren't you 1 second ago or 1 year ago or yesterday. At that very point you are you until you know you are in with 1 more second of life. No-one is their "self" they are people on a timer waiting to expire.
Why do you this to yourself?
I am sure you have a had a run in with melcharaz enough times that he is not capable of thinking his Religion is wrong.
Are you a masochists?
Do you like pain?
Answer me.
I know a debate is about who can bring the most convincing argument but I do also like debates to be that both members are willing to change their mind.
I had a message below.
Thanks in advnace
Can you guys/gals vote on this debate please?
I am not really good at making commitments to voting on debates and doubt I will get any better so I asked you guys/gals to vote.
Thanks in advance
Don't listen to That1User.
It is welcome to DA!
It sounds better and I did see bsh1 call it DART but I can't be banned for using a different acronym so pick mine.
It is less characters which results in if you continue to be on this site for a long time and said DA rather then DART you would have saved a lot of characters.
Thank me later if you do use DA.
There is a logically inconsistent way of seeing how he got there.
There is also the case where he has pretty much followed YouTubers online and just watched them for answers instead of verifying them to be true. The one that comes to mind where I found someone who is an atheist but always keeps ragging on the left while also not saying he is part of the left is styxhexenhammer666. There are many other examples but I came up with him first. He is an atheist which opposes the Paris climate change deal when Trump decided to withdraw and says really nothing bad about the right. So basically I think he has been watching videos without actually maybe I am wrong or maybe I should verify my sources.
Where I found what he is for or against.
https://www.debate.org/debates/Should-Guns-Be-Legalized/1/comments/2/
He is really st*pid. I don't see the point in helping people who don't want help.
He is an atheist who supports Donald Trump. Let that sink in.
Even though he is not bound by the Republican by Religion and assuming he used reason to get to the conclusion God exits he fails to see how logically inconsistent he is being with other topics.
These are the things he stated he is for or against
Abortion (i'm pro-life)
Guns (i'm pro-gun)
Does God exist (i'm atheist)
1st amendment (i'm for it)
2nd amendment (i'm for it)
Gay marriage (i'm for it)
Trying to have a conversation with an atheist Republican who supports Donald Trump.
I mean what we were you thinking?
How about if my arguments are corrects and I am trying to point out the flaws in their understanding?
Don't you even agree with me here so am I still being a "skeptic" even though you agree with me?
Isn't that the same thing you posted on good music?
I did see it.
"When I realize I'm depressing recently I listen to this some. sit back, close your eyes "
I can't really do this. Have tried to relax but can't really. My mind wanders. I think I can only really relax if I am tired but I don't want to exercise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdpvj_iVAFk
Reminds me on Nier Automata.
Here is my one that resembles it enjoy. I have a bunch because I really find the one that I am looking for but I can give my favourite one that I remember from Nier Automata.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGFOvuOxwuU
Found one that closely resembles what you gave me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRHsEWIC8PI&list=PLc_RJ2laVnkAwYhZ7V8t4n4y-U1zd0fOj
Should get you to a playlist of all Nier Automata songs. I will also put this in good music.
"I was not bold describing my error because humans have trouble expressing when they've made mistakes."
I guess it would optimism's faults I guess.
"Pessimism is a philosophy supported more broadly in Europe."
Any proof?
I don't think it is.
"GL in your debate, I'll check it out."
The debate was over a while ago and a pro lifer has voted against me.
I am currently watching it and realising yeah this is how I think as well, Thank you for reminding me how depressed I am.
No you weren't you were saying Mark Twain was better without saying you got it wrong.
"I saw it was a Nietzsche quote base on my first google search."
Shame that you forgot about it when you typed in Mark Twain.
"He was a philosopher that heavily infuluenced my life so it's sad that I'd confuse a quote like that. Still"
I like him too. Not really influenced by him too much (because I hardly knowing anything about philosophy) but he is a philosopher that I relatively know. Guess it must be because of nihilism.
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oX2xFo7JA4"
I can't believe you have a link about pessimism. I am losing a debate because I am getting voted against by pro-lifers on DDO. Thank you for reminding me.
"Mark Twain was far superior to Nietzsche so it just stands to reason the he made the quote. These are just facts bro."
Mark Twain did not say that. I typed in what you quoted from Mark Twain and it found Friedrich Nietzsche said it. If Mark Twain did say it it would be on the site. Mine are actual facts sis.
It was Friedrich Nietzsche who said it dumb dumb.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/friedrich_nietzsche_124387
How did you know?
Who is Mark Twain?
"Hey cliche: 'he who fights with monster's should take care.'"
Hey that is my quote. Who is using it?
Not really mine but I do use it.
"Marx was literally wrong about everything."
Spoken like a true intellectually dishonest conservative. Do you want me to show how you are wrong?
Yeah add a receiver and I should see the message with the blue bell.
Can't tag you so just wait for me to upload it in the philosophy forum section.
Forum page?
Missed out the be and should have added the word subjective instead of objective.
Here is the actual question.
How can you be objective when you are using something subjective like senses?
"Since you have refused to move the conversation out of respect for the debaters. I will take that as a defeat for you."
I have a question and you didn't answer it.
Is it an unfair question did I not answer your question?
I gave you a question and you didn't want to answer it. What was I supposed to say?
How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?
"You're quite the character Omar. You keep things interesting on here."
I am taking this as a defeat from Wrick-It-Ralph. I have made it easier for you. Simply answer one question.
How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?
Call it what you want.
It is not a loaded question or whatever it maybe instead I tried to make the best question that I had a problem with answering.
I doubt a 10 year old would know what objective means.
So you can't answer it?
I'll be more specific.
How can you objective when you are using something objective like senses?
"You asked how I know if someone's senses are more right."
So your senses are not more right than a blind person?
"You know what accurate means. Stop being difficult."
Did I ask for the definition or what is it accurate for?
"The act of attempting to prove it is redundant and shows the absurdity in trying to prove it."
False since without knowing our senses to be true we don't have a foundation to have it based on objectivity.
"The contrary is impossible."
I am only asking you to use the same standards as you would for anything else. How do you know your senses are reliable?
"What is truth huh?"
You said the truth stays the same what is the truth?
"your second question is incoherent and irrelevant to the topic."
So even if a person is blind the truth still remains the same?
"You see an apples so you know apples exist"
How do you know that apple is an apple?
"What do you mean what's my point? You're the one who brought it up not me. What's YOUR point?"
What are you trying to say here "Nobody's senses are more right than another persons."
"Correct at being accurate."
Accurate in doing what?
"I will not stop using this as it is a tenant of philosophy. Are you going to tell me to stop using philosophy?"
Self-evident is not evidence. It is a fancy way of saying we accept this premise to be true because we can't prove it.
"Nope, the truth stays the same, the only thing that wavers is your sensory organs as they slowly rot."
What is the truth?
When is the person at peak perceiving the truth?
How do you know it is the truth?
"Nobody's senses are more right than another persons."
So what is your point then?
"My standard is if it is accurate and it is so yes it is correct."
Correct in doing what?
"self evidence"
Stop using this. It is not evidence instead it is basically saying it is true without evidence.
"because reality reveals the truth of itself from day one."
So does this truth waver as you get older?
"We don't perceive the world without senses."
Okay then so how do you know your senses are more right than someone else's?
"The only standard I care about is if it gives me accurate information, if it does, then it's reliable."
So you are saying since it is reliable you would deem it correct?
In what way are you saying it is correct?
Is it we ought to see this way or this is reliable there it must be correct?
"That one went entirely over your head. The whole point is that the cracker is a representation of the toast. That's what makes it objective. They're the same thing."
But you can never truly know if that cracker is a toast or might be a cracker. You would have to assume the environment you are in can ascertain something which can give you truth. Am I wrong?
"The alternative isn't no senses. The alternative would be "sense are not reliable" and we can imagine what that would be like."
How else do we perceive the world without senses?
"Lets say the sense are never reliable, that is to say that they are always wrong."
Reliability doesn't mean they are correct.
"to me, the experience will be identical to eating a cracker and no matter what is really happening, the act is not hurting me, and it's keeping me alive."
So even you can't prove to me with a hypothetical that objectivity can be true in whatever form it maybe.
A is eating toast but A objectively is eating crackers.
How would A know A would be eating crackers if everyone on Earth also perceived crackers to be toast?
"If I can demonstrate something consistently and repeatedly to the point where I can make predictions,"
Guess you don't like my blind example.
But we can't test alternatives since we only really have senses and we can't remove them in order to verify if the alternative is true. Blind is lack of senses not no senses.
I am going on by one until we can get some sort of agreement then I will speak about the other 5. Guess you missed me saying it.
"1. That is the proof, if you studied philosophy, you would know that things can be verified by self evidence. The practical demonstration proves their accuracy. If my senses were false, then they wouldn't produce consistent results."
That is not proof. The Big Bang is still a theory which best explains the start of the universe.
The blind person has consistent and repeatable results what makes yours more correct than a blind person's perception.
"1. My senses produce consistent and repeatable results which pragmatically achieve my goals the way I intend them to be achieved. "
I am sorry why are you not proving to me why your initials senses are correct?
"2. When my senses are wrong, they are consistently wrong such that I can tell when they're wrong, therefore, I am able to distinguish between reality and fantasy."
I wasn't speaking about fantasy instead what argument can you make that a blind person has the wrong perception of reality compared to yours?
"3. Notice how it's called an Argumentum Ad Populum and not an Ad Populum Fallacy. Why do you think that is? It's because it's not always a fallacy. My third proof is scientific consensus which is a justified application of the ad populum argument. "
Science have not proved our senses to be true if they have they are liars. No point in using this argument.
"4. I cannot change reality through sheer willpower, therefore it's not part of me."
A blind person can't change their perception using sheer willpower are they wrong?
"5. I cannot deny my reality, even if I close my eyes and scream to ignore it, when I eventually get sick of doing so, I will be forced to again experience my consistent reliable reality."
Still does not state the difference between a blind person's eyesight and a person who isn't blind.
"6. The contrary to this argument is vacuous and does not conform with logic. Therefore, it cannot be the case."
Logic? You would have to assume your senses to be true in order a good enough ground for logic. No one can prove their senses to be true.
"Easy win you say?"
Easy you just made it more complicated.
Any chance of sticking point by point instead of expecting me to debunk 6 arguments? I would go through with all of them but I much rather it be 1 by 1.