Total posts: 112
1. Popular uprising / revolution is not the same as coup.
2. ”Călin Georgescu was banned from running in Romania's 2025 presidential elections due to a legal decision from Romania's Supreme Court. The court ruled that Georgescu had been convicted of corruption-related offenses in the past, which, under Romanian law, made him ineligible to run for office.”
Created:
-->
@WyIted
In the definition you’re working with you mention that everyone has the right of bodily autonomy. Do you not think this implies people can’t interfere with other people’s bodily autonomy even if they have no limits when it comes to doing things on themselves. The definition grants autonomy to every person. People who violate that should get the obvious consequences (the consq. being having their b.a. violated). Maybe the logic of your arguments are not internally consistent with your own definition that specifically implies that there are limits when it comes to others and no limits when it comes to oneself. If you assume things that contradict the first sentence of your definition “every person has bodily autonomy” then obviously the second part “with no limits” doesn’t apply to what you think it applies. It applies to yourself only. There’s no limits what can you do to your own body as long as you don’t touch other peoples bodies. Per your definition. Since everyone has the same right.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Obviously in society the people who violate the bodily autonomy of others will not have their bodily autonomy.
This is why we take away the bodily autonomy and sometimes the life itself from people like serial killers.
Some laws are specifically for those who do not consider the bodily autonomy of others. There are no logical inconsistencies. If you don’t respect other people’s wishes about their own bodies, yours wont be too.
In the same time you are absolutely free to do whatever it pleases you with your own body. If you wish to go Congo and not get vaccinated for ebola and get it, you are free to do nothing about it and die peacefully somewhere where people don’t mind being infected by you. You are obviously not free to come and spread your body fluids in my house. Thats how the bodily autonomy argument works. In my opinion.
The mandates you are talking about are only about assumed violators of the bodily autonomy principle.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Bodily Autonomy refers to each person’s right to make decisions about their own body, without coercion or limits imposed by outside forces
Making decisions about your own body should come with no limits, yes.
Other people also have the same right so it’s common sense that you cannot use your right to violate the same right of someone else.
Making decisions about your own body that affect the bodies of other people without their consent is not granted by the bodily autonomy argument nor by its definition.
[the examples you provided as inconsistent (face masks…) include decisions that infringe other people’s bodily autonomy]
Remember by your definition, each person has the right to choose what happens to their body. In society, if you use your bodily autonomy to violate the bodily autonomy of someone else that equals consequences. Which is why we have rules, laws and bans that make it clear for people who don’t understand what bodily autonomy is and what exactly it allows them to do.
Those are not inconsistencies.
Now, what I think is that the unborn baby in a sense is a part of the mother, it doesn’t have full (if not any) bodily autonomy because its body is not autonomous. By aborting the baby you are not infringing on another person’s autonomy because they have none yet. They depend on using your body and cannot make their own decisions. I could be wrong but this is what I think as of now.
To attribute bodily autonomy to an unborn baby is a different discussion that would involve talking about what rights should the baby have and what personhood is. This should probably be clarified before talking about the bodily autonomy argument imo. That’s why I asked you that first.
If you don’t have a definition of what is a person and what rights should the baby have it will be difficult to analyze most of the abortion related topics.
Even if you consider the baby an independent person, that person is still using your body to survive. If the case is then that people who are pro choice value bodily autonomy more than life and you just think thats bad, ok. But it is not inconsistent. Because when you say
(paraphrasing) “you should not enforce face mask because your logic follows that bodily autonomy is more important than spreading this disease and potentially killing other people (taking life like abortion for the sake of autonomy“
that doesn’t mean that “liberals” suddenly decided to value life over bodily autonomy in this case. They still value bodily autonomy first. They want people who live in society to not violate the bodily autonomy of each other. Going out in public if you’re sick and not taking precautions to not harm others is violation on the bodily autonomy argument.
Anyway.
Where is the inconsistency with any of this and Im curious why secular humanism is an evil moral framework regarding this topic?
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Regarding your number 29 and number 30 posts.
I got really confused.
ChatGpT seems to rebut your arguments in almost the same way I did and I don’t see any improvements just adding more details with examples but keeping the same logic.
Also;
However you haven't really explained why your ideal of what that covert contract entails is more accurate than mine.
I don’t think consenting to sexual activity logically entails consenting to pregnancy or parenthood . What do you think about my gym analogy?. You just take a chance and if something unwanted happens then that’s a separate issue. Sex is not just for procreation. You can’t reasonably think that consenting to sex is signing any kind of contract about parenthood. It’s signing a contract that says “Hey we are going to risk conception, hopefully we take all precautions but theres never 100% guarantees”
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Put in a prompt to make it as concise if possible if you can please.
Do you mean my last long post?
Sorry i just wanted to make sure you were in fact a human.
No issues, it’s understandable. I like using AI as a self teaching tool to improve my vocabulary and present the best possible version of my arguments. The original drafts of my arguments are long enough so when I tell AI to improve the language I can see how it becomes too much and it might look not human.
conflating bodily autonomy with self ownership.
Can you please clarify the mistake you think you made. They sound like almost the same thing to me or maybe I’m just misunderstanding something.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
And by the way, I don't rely on ChatGPT to validate my logic, as it tends to be horrible in that. What I do is provide it with my reasoning and task it with enhancing my vocabulary since I’m not a native English speaker nor an academic.
Secondly, even if I had no hand in any of my arguments, if the case is simply that you are wrong at the end it doesn’t matter who explained it to you. A robot or me, you are still incorrect.
Created:
No need for anyone to check anything. I will admit here something that I thought it’s obvious and irrelevant. AI exists and people use it. I am one of them.
I type my answer in notes and give chatgpt the same task every time. “Make my argument sound more academic and check for mistakes without removing any content”. What is the problem?
It’s more important if my statements are correct not if AI helped me type them.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Using my own words wont change my arguments. If you don't want to answer you don't have to. And I don't see a reason why I cant use AI to enhance my arguments and grammar. Never claimed Im not using it. I type my own arguments and then tell ChatGPT to make them sound better. If that is a problem for you sorry.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I think it's fair to have a hierarchy of values and valuing life above autonomy while still valuing both.
This statement is generally plausible, but it remains somewhat broad and does not offer substantial guidance in addressing complex dilemmas such as this one. The interplay between values like autonomy and the preservation of life often involves nuanced considerations that require more specific analysis, especially when the circumstances are multifaceted and context-dependent.
A parent has an obligation to feed their child.
It is indeed expected that parents provide for their children, particularly when they have made the conscious decision to bring a child into the world. In this regard, parents assume a significant responsibility to nurture and care for their kids. However, I would argue that "obligation" may be too strong of a term. Parents retain the autonomy to place their child for adoption for example, should they choose to relinquish their parental rights. Therefore, the notion of obligation may not be absolute, but rather contingent upon the parent's decision to maintain custody.
Help them if they are choking.
Yes, in many societies, there is a general expectation to assist a person, particularly a child, who is in imminent life danger. It is reasonable to assume that individuals should intervene if they can do so without significant personal risk, especially when the situation involves an easily preventable harm, such as choking. However, it is important to draw a distinction between this and more significant life-threatening situations.
Helping a choking child may require only minimal effort and impose no substantial risk to the person providing assistance. In contrast, situations like rescuing a child from drowning may demand a far greater level of risk, particularly if the potential rescuer is not trained or is personally unable to swim. In these cases, no ethical framework mandates that an individual should put their life at risk for the sake of another. The risks involved are considerably different, and thus, pregnancy can be more accurately likened to the second, more dangerous scenario.
Pregnancy involves far-reaching consequences, including long-term bodily changes, potential medical complications, and the risk of significant harm. Therefore, it is not analogous to helping a child who is choking, which is a comparatively minor and temporary intervention.
You also have seemed to accept that with vaccines or taxes we have an obligation to interrupt our bodily autonomy for the benefit of others.
It is essential to recognize the distinction between voluntary participation in society and coerced compliance. When individuals choose to engage in certain social structures, such as citizenship or participation in a public health system, they are, by extension, consenting to certain collective obligations—such as vaccination or the payment of taxes—that contribute to the broader public good.
In the case of pregnancy, however, the situation differs. If a woman voluntarily chooses to continue a pregnancy, she consents to the use of her body for the benefit of the baby. This is a conscious and deliberate choice, distinct from societal mandates that require individuals to forfeit bodily autonomy in cases where public harm might result (e.g., in the case of contagious diseases). An unborn child, due to its developmental stage, cannot be reasonably considered to possess full bodily autonomy, which further complicates the ethical calculus in this situation.
So in society we only interrupt our bodily autonomy if we could endanger other people’s bodily autonomy. Considering also that we are not harming ourselves by doing so.
By engaging in sexual intercourse you are signing a type of covert contract with the yet-to-be baby, where you agree to carry them to full term and take care of them.
I must strongly disagree with this assertion. Consent to engage in sexual activity should not be equated with consent to endure pregnancy and parenthood. Sexual consent pertains to the act itself and, at most, to the potential for conception. The potential for pregnancy is an inherent risk associated with sexual activity, but this does not constitute a contractual agreement to carry a pregnancy to term or assume parental duties.
The risk of pregnancy is a consequence that individuals are aware of when engaging in sexual activity, but it does not equate to consent to the full experience of pregnancy and childbirth. The decision to continue with a pregnancy is a separate and deliberate choice that goes beyond the initial consent to sexual activity. In other words, consent to sex is not the same as consent to the enduring and life-altering experience of carrying a child to term.
Consenting to sex is like signing up for a fitness class. You acknowledge the risk of injury, but you don't consent to a lets say a broken leg. Similarly, consenting to sex means accepting the possibility of pregnancy, but it doesn't mean agreeing to endure the entire experience of pregnancy and childbirth.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I must acknowledge that my reading of your post was somewhat cursory, so I apologize in advance for any potential misinterpretations.
The definition of bodily autonomy you employ in this context may be somewhat tricky. For me, bodily autonomy is fundamentally the right to make decisions regarding one’s own body, and I also agree with the adage that "my freedom to swing my fist ends where your face begins." So there are limits to bodily autonomy. Therefore, I would argue against including the phrase “without coercion or limits imposed by outside forces.” This is because if I, for instance, choose to engage in an act of self-destructive behavior, such as strapping to myself and detonating a bomb in a public area, this decision to harm my own body would likely have adverse consequences for others. In such instances, society holds the legitimate right to impose restrictions in order to safeguard the well-being of its members, particularly if I wish to coexist within that society. Thus, I would frame bodily autonomy as the freedom to act as one wishes with one’s own body, provided such actions do not infringe upon or harm another individual’s bodily autonomy.
Regarding issues like COVID-19 and taxation, I do not see any inherent inconsistency within liberal perspectives on these matters. If an individual chooses to live within a society, they must respect the well being and welfare of that society. While one has the right to refuse vaccination, forgo wearing a mask, or otherwise disregard preventive health measures, such autonomy cannot extend to actions that may jeopardize the health and safety of others. In this context, the right to refuse medical intervention or precautionary measures, such as vaccination, is contingent upon not imposing a risk to others. If one wishes to exercise full autonomy over their health decisions without any restrictions, they must do so in isolation, away from the risks of contagion inherent in social environments. This constitutes a limitation on bodily autonomy to prevent harm to others.
With respect to taxation, the argument is similarly straightforward: individuals are obliged to contribute to the communal infrastructure and services they utilize. If one objects to paying taxes, they are free to attempt to live outside of the system that provides those services, such as in an isolated, self-sufficient environment. Of course, such an endeavor would be practically challenging, given the complexities of modern society and its interdependent systems.
The issue of whether an unborn baby constitutes a person who is harmed is a subject of debate, and its answer hinges on one’s definition of personhood. Is personhood contingent upon subjective experience, individuality, or another criterion? This is a complex and interesting question that deserves further exploration.
Even if we accept the premise that an unborn baby is, indeed, a person, another question arises: does a this person have the right to use the body of another person without consent? This situation parallels the ethical dilemmas surrounding organ donation or life-saving medical treatments. We generally do not compel individuals to donate organs or provide medical care to others, even when the recipients are in dire need. Thus, the issue becomes whether an unborn baby, assuming it is granted personhood, can claim bodily autonomy over the pregnant person's body, and if so, to what extent this claim is justified.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Can you define person and put in a syllogism why you think bodily autonomy is not a good argument for pro choice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you are truly convinced by something you don't need to play these mind games with yourself.
Yes but again there are scenarios where you are not truly convinced, only partly.
Faith, much like trust, better describes an action or a choice.
Yes, the decision to trust is an action, it’s a choice. I don’t see any relevance to the evidence issue.
You are combining sperate things.
To show that they can coexist.
If a belief is 50% justifiable yet you have 80% confidence, that additional 30% is faith. It doesn't become entirely justifiable or entirely unjustified because there's a bit of both mixed in. So in that example I still maintain that faith is best described at belief without evidence
So if a belief is 50% justifiable and you do justify it to whatever extent possible. How did you justify those 50%? By Some evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, at times these concepts are interchangeable because faith (and knowledge) can be viewed as subsets of belief. Knowledge is justified belief, while faith represents belief held in the face of uncertainty. Faith often entails elements like optimism, trust, or hope, while knowledge is grounded in beliefs that have been substantiated. Belief, more broadly, is the acceptance of something as true. We are in agreement on these distinctions. We only began discussing subsets when you mentioned that I "interchange" these terms. The fact is, it’s not problematic to do so occasionally, as we both acknowledged, and yet there remain important distinctions, as we both agreed.
The point of contention seems to be your assertion that “you don’t need faith (or optimism) if you have evidence.” Perhaps you intended to say, “You don’t need faith (or optimism) if you have all the evidence (which is equivalent to proof).” In that case, I would agree. If all the evidence is present, faith becomes unnecessary, as certainty is achieved. However, as I pointed out earlier, sometimes some evidence (such as a good movie trailer & cast) doesn’t fully prove a proposition (whether the movie will be good). If you choose to trust the claim and fill the gap of uncertainty with faith, you’re still holding a belief, albeit one under uncertainty. This exemplifies that it’s possible to have both faith and evidence for the same proposition, thereby countering the claim that “faith is belief without evidence.” Faith, therefore, must be more accurately defined as “belief in a proposition despite incomplete certainty, lacking definitive proof, or full evidence.”
After I clarify next my concept of evidence, I’m confident we can integrate all these ideas more cohesively.
The final point of disagreement is in your criteria for evidence. I, too, differentiate between evidence and proof. Evidence refers to any information, facts, or materials that may support or substantiate a claim, argument, or belief.
By "information," I mean that it could be subjective and, perhaps, unconvincing to some (and maybe even to me). However, the crucial point is that it remains information related to a proposition. You are not compelled to irrationally accept or believe this evidence if it’s insufficient, but it is still considered evidence.
Consider a situation where a friend claims that your neighbor won five million dollars in the lottery. The strongest evidence would be the lottery ticket itself, bank statements, signs of wealth and so forth. But what if for now you just have your friend who says, “My wife who knows a friend of your neighbor’s wife told me…”? In this instance, the evidence is hearsay, which is weaker and less reliable. While it’s still technically evidence, its worth is diminished because it lacks the immediacy and trustworthiness needed to reliably validate the claim. It still serves as a piece of information pointing toward the proposition. No one is forcing you to believe it. Acting on that evidence irrationally is the issue, not the evidence itself.
Evidence, in and of itself, isn’t classified as rational or irrational—those judgments apply to the conclusions drawn from it. Evidence is merely the material or information used to support a claim, and whether it’s rational or not depends entirely on how it is interpreted and applied when forming conclusions.
Just as many Christians possess a range of evidence supporting their beliefs, but the conclusions they draw are often not rational or logically consistent, the problem lies not with the evidence but with how it is used to form conclusions. The evidence may be weak, misinterpreted, or insufficient to conclusively support the claims, rendering the conclusions irrational, not the evidence itself.
Now, you may want to discuss how much uncertainty faith can reasonably fill before it becomes irrational, which I’m sure is something we both care about. But that’s a separate issue.
For example, after watching a well-crafted movie trailer featuring a talented director, producer, and cast, based on an acclaimed book, you may be 85% certain the movie will be good. In this case, faith isn’t bridging too large a gap. The belief that the movie will be good is justified by the available evidence, though it remains uncertain. In such a case, faith can coexist with evidence.
However, if you only know the movie title and have no further information, but you believe it will be good simply because you like the title, this would be an irrational faith/belief. This is when faith is used to fill an overly large gap of uncertainty, making the belief disproportionate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
Do you not understand the problem with your exact limitations/clarifications/definitions (however you want to call it at this point) of that word?
I have to ask because you never address the main problem.
People can have faith and its still faith regardless of how stupidity they arrived to their conclusions. As long as someone trusts the validity of an uncertain proposition they have faith in that thing. Could they be wrong or stupid- yea so what?
So the definition of the word faith has nothing to do with authorities or credibility. Sure if someone asks you why do you have this faith go ahead and say why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Sometimes my belief (acceptance) in a proposition could be faith based meaning I trust it despite having major or minor uncertainties and sometimes my beliefs could be justified when they are proven beyond doubt etc.
Those words (faith, belief, trust, knowledge) are interchangeable sometimes because like I said they are closely related. And like you said one can be subset of another.
And I don't know why you cant be optimistic when you have evidence for something. Do you think once you have some sort of evidence for something there’s automatically no doubts anymore? Or you dont form beliefs about anything until you gather every single piece of information about the topic?
If you watch a trailer for a movie you like and it’s really promising, cant you have faith it’s going to be good? You have evidence. You saw some footage that looked exiting, you saw the cast and it has your favorite actors? Cant you not use the word faith in the context “i have faith this movie will be good” based on the information you saw? You cant definitely know that the movie will be good based on only that evidence, yes? So your belief that the movie will be good is not knowledge its faith.
Im not going to go into the religious use of the word since there could be a debate also. Why should the word in that context mean “belief with no evidence”. Maybe you mean “belief with no definite proof” since many religions people would say they do have their own evidence but they cannot prove their propositions to others.
Point is sometimes you can have evidence about something you trust to be true but it might not be enough to be certain or to prove your proposition and then faith is appropriate to use.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
Whether people have faith for stupid reasons or based on unreliable authorities does not make their faith not faith. Sure we can say it makes them stupid if you feel like that’s important part of the definition we should also mention? Another clarification? - If you have faith in something based on unreliable sources you’re stupid.
What you gave serves as a limitation not only as a clarification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Trust , faith and believe are connected in a sense so it’s hard to make big distinctions. Over here I am talking about the word faith outside of any context (religious or traditional).
To me “Faith” has to do with uncertainty and some beliefs could be more or less established and certain.
That is why I said “trust in something”. Trust your belief will align with a certain proposition that is not provable currently, only in the future or maybe not at all. The distinction we are dealing with is actually about the degree of certainty and the role of evidence in how we arrive at a belief.
You can have beliefs that could be proven, justifiable and reasonable. They could be defined as knowledge.
You can believe things like the theory of evolution based on scientific evidence. Agreeing with a proposition or an idea is a belief.
But people hold beliefs based on bad evidence too. Believing because of an authority or because you had personal experience is evidence in the sense that it is something pointing towards a certain proposition. It is not good evidence but it is something.
Evidence is just information directing to whether a proposition is true or false. Some information is just more reliable than others. Some information is just false etc.
People usually have some kind of information that makes them believe in a proposition.
People can’t have “beliefs with absolutely no evidence”
They can have “beliefs based on bad evidence”.
Now do I know that the theory of evolution will hold true forever and there will be no better explanation for the evidence we currently have? No. Do I have faith it will- Yes.
I do believe Evolution is our best explanation for certain things based on scientific evidence.
My belief that it wont be disproven in the future could be defined as faith because I trust the future discoveries will align with my belief that Evolution is true. The current evidences for Evolution are the evidences I base my trust in the future validity and truthfulness of my belief. So I can have faith and evidence in the same time.
In a way, it’s almost like faith acts as a placeholder for knowledge we don't yet possess but expect to gain, based on current evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
Two different questions. You tell me not only what faith is but why you have it. It doesn’t need to be part of the definition because it can vary from person to person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MAV99
I would define faith as just “the believe or trust in something”.
Just like being confident in the truth of a statement.
Whether it is based on evidence, no evidence, authority or credibility has nothing to do with the definition.
I can have faith that my bed wont fall apart next time I lay on in based on evidence.
Children can have faith that the tooth fairy will bring them money overnight based on authority (their parents told them so) etc.
So whether your faith is reasonable or not depends on your reasons. But I don’t think it’s reasonable to put your reasons for your faith in the definition of faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Why do you think anyone will care about anyone on a small dead debate website?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Me blocking you and still willing to debate you literally proves that what you just said is total nonsense. Blocking doesn’t mean running from you or scared from you.
You can lose patience when you try to teach a monkey how to do computer programming, that doesn’t mean you’re a coward. Being relaxed has nothing to do with it too. You can be completely relaxed and realize that the monkey just doesn’t have the cognitive abilities to understand complex things. It’s only right to give that up because you will just lose time. So I hope you understand that :
Inpatient ≠ Afraid
Giving up trying to explain something to someone who just doesn’t get it ≠ Afraid
Not engaging with the information given to you ≠ refuting points or disproving points
If you want to keep trying to teach the monkey quantum computing without any success just because you think it makes you have “thick skin” or you think you can “learn a bit” then good luck.
Now I dont think theres anyone here who is a monkey but Im just making this analogy to show you how nothing of what you said can be connected to “They're on the run, running scared.”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Yeah no problem, you’re unblocked and I can address your arguments in the debate. Can you stop beating around the bushes and say if you want the debate or not? Its a yes or a no question.
Created:
Posted in:
Does that mean “yes”? Its a yes from me, is it a yes from you too? Because I’ve been accused of being on the run before but when I create the debate it gets deleted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Btw Mall idk how many people have blocked you but I have blocked you specifically not to @ me in the Forum. I dont mind debating you so if you wish to debate about something this time will be in an actual debate because I dont have patience to repeat the same thing 17 times. So would you like me to create the Evolution debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Blocking someone who has convinced you they are unable to engage with you in any sensible way after you and many people have tried with logic and reason to explain a simple thing is a simple solution if you do not wish to waste time with them anymore. If they have presented themselves as disingenuous, ignorant or purposely antagonizing blocking someone is just trying to limit your interaction with them as much as possible or simply at least not get notifications from them. In this website blocking is useless so all it does is the “not get notifications” from them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
If the game's idea is for me to click on 1000 buttons during that, to micromanage, I might just not like the game
Yes I guess it just comes to that and thats not your type of game. If you just wait for constructions and national focus its boring. You do have to do a lot of micro managing (even with the war) and like the other guy said theres a lot to do all the time but it can be overwhelming for some people. It takes time to learn all the things you need to do in the game and it can be even more confusing if you just start playing without knowing what to do. With this kind of games usually the more you learn about it the more interesting it becomes.
Those are the “grand strategy” games. Its much different than the normal “strategies” like Age of Empires where you build a base and send troops against the other person’s base.. Those are quick and fun (and not so complex). HOI4 is staring one hour at a map and thinking. Most of the game happens in your head not on the screen. If you want to click on animations and not on buttons you wont like it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
For me the war is usually the fastest part of the game since I start playing with smaller countries and it takes time to develop their industry and military but once thats done and you make the right moves you can conquer a country in a week which is a couple seconds in real time. But yes sometimes and maybe most times it can take a while!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Resources are pretty much based on the land your country occupies and your industry level . If you click on a region it will tell you what recourses are there. You can trade resources with other countries if you need some extra for your equipment and that uses civilian factories .
Also if you play with Germany you can start a war right away. If you play with Italy you are already in war with Ethiopia when you begin the game, so everything depends on which country you start with, and your policies
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Okay, since debate is not something some people feel comfortable with for some reasons I will just address a couple points here and just be done with this “conversation” since its the same as explaining what “scientific theory” is to @Mall.
Now I understand why Sidewalker refused on multiple occasions to answer questions, define theism, deism, scientific method, whats reasonable etc and I guess being vague is a good strategy but some things are just ridiculous.
Firstly, scientism is the concept that you can only prove things with science. I am sure he is aware of that but he is extremely confused of what I have challenged him to do. I never wanted a scientific proof of god. I wanted a sound reason for the belief that a theistic god exists. That could be empirical evidence or logical argument or anything that could be considered reasonable without logical fallacies. The reason I asked for something scientific is that because Sidewalker claimed on numerous occasions that theism is scientific. An absolute nonsensical statement that is rejected even by the best religious apologists and philosophers. Even Sidewalker agreed that science cannot prove god and to claim that the belief in god IS scientific is a simple contradiction of his own statement and it can only be true if you twist and change the definition of “scientific method” in a way that it fits only your beliefs and nobody’s else. Sidewalker brought up art, philosophy and other things different from science and claimed that they can prove something… sure but thats not a scientific method. So, again not achieving anything because thats not science. If you can prove God with art, good for you but that is not science and if you have no scientific argument for your belief in God then obviously your belief in God did not come from scientific methods. Asking questions like if “baseball” is scientific is extremely ignorant. First of all baseball does not require any belief in it. I can go to a stadium, observe a baseball game, go there and test it myself by grabbing a bat and hitting a ball. So if you ask me if my beliefs in the existence of baseball is based on observations and tests then sure, I can say yes, that sounds like the definition of “scientific method”. I have no idea why he even wanted to argue about theism being scientific without having anything to back that up.
Secondly, aside from all the logical fallacies that he committed while trying to justify the reasonableness of his belief in the vaguely defined “theistic” God and that he refused to elaborate or engage with my rebuttals by simply ridiculing them or ignoring them, saying “go back to your fallacies list”. Without providing any reasons why saying “Isaac Newton was reasonable and he believed in God therefore the belief in God is reasonable” is not an appeal to authority and without acknowledging any of the other logically compromised statements of his, he had 0 philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
The only thing that is worth responding to now is his objection towards external reality. I understand why he resolved to such bad argument for Theism being reasonable, after all nothing else worked for him which is the reason why he got paranoid and defensive and refused to say anything else about his beliefs. Repeating the same phrases as “BoP game”, “I win”, insults and vulgar language, jokes, ignoring questions he cannot answer, etc.. just shows how he has never heard good objections to his beliefs. It also shows his maturity.
So to get to the point. Sidewalker, I cannot prove external reality, if you are looking for the capital “T” truth I cannot give it to you. Maybe @ebuc can since he apparently is good with physics but I want to take more casual approach to this. You ignored him too btw which is funny. The reason none of this matters even if we cannot definitely prove the external reality and that leaves the door open for something mysterious, this in no way is a good sound reason to accept the truth of theism. As you hopefully know, theism is the belief that a God who intervenes with us exists. He can be transcended and all of that, which you mentioned, he can be in a spiritual realm or whatever, but the key here is that God is interacting. Nothing of what you said gives us a good reason to believe that there is a creator of the universe that interacts or cares about us. The mere possibility of something is not a sound reason. I have already agreed that God is possible to exist. Supernatural realm is possible to exist. Exactly because none of us know or can possibly know at this stage of our evolution what the true nature of reality is. As far as we know a lot of things are possible. But is the mere possibility of something a good reason to believe in it? I can possibly win the lottery if I go buy a ticket now, I can possibly win shit tone of money if I sell all my belongings and go to the casino and bet it all on number 8. Would the mere possibility of something like that make it reasonable for me to do it or to believe its true and it would happen? This is why your objections and challenges to prove external reality are absolutely irrelevant to the question “is THEISM reasonable”.
You had no empirical or scientific evidence to back up your claims that theism is scientific.
You had no sound arguments of any kind that support the reasonableness of theism. Not scientific, not philosophical, not art, not anything.
This is the reason why a belief can be considered irrational. My disbelief is based on the fact that I have not encountered a sound argument that supports the idea that there is a god who interacts with us. But since there are multiple variations of who that God is I have different arguments against different Gods and this is why I asked you what exactly you believe in. I wasn’t trying to trick you into a game I was trying to start the actual discussion but you refused. For the sake of the argument I agreed to your vague definition of God which is not theistic but again you had nothing to back that up too except fallible arguments, insults, and hoping that just because someone cant prove objective reality thats enough for your beliefs to be reasonable. Just because someone cant disprove something doesnt make it reasonable. The presupposition that we exist and the world around us still exists without us is based on empirical evidence and inquiry not on faith. Every single person has to start with some presuppositions and assume something to make sense of the world. I assume a physical reality exists because I can observe objects around me, I can touch them, I can turn on the stove, touch it and burn my hand. Now I might be a brain in a vat or in simulation but theres no way to know that. I know what is around me and I presume it exists because we have no other choice. Now if you want to presume the things around you dont exist, or there is something else supernatural to that, or you presume God exists thats okay. You have all the right to do so. My only question is what do you see around you that makes you presume God? If you want me to send you proof of my presupposition give me an address and I will send you a chair from my house. It might not be enough but hey its at least a starting point for my presupposition that external things around me exist. Maybe you can send me something back to show me why you think God exist? But dont worry, it doesn’t have to be a material proof of God, maybe send me a letter with your philosophical arguments with some sound logic or maybe some kind of art you think proves God? Im all eyes and ears :) and if you dont have anything better than a basic chair then sorry but you have your answer.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I disagree, you do need justification for all of the things you mentioned. There are reasons I am not Christian and muslim and taoist etc. Atheism requires justification too. Its not just well I dont believe just because. You need reasons for your non belief or you are the same as theist who don’t have reasons for their belief.
There are reasons all those religions are not compelling.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
You have some good points, I don’t know then why you didn’t accept the debate I offered you. Obviously you still feel like debating on this topic and you are well read which is good so I’ll try giving it another go and make another debate. If you wish you can accept it, this time I will remove all definitions so you can take it anywhere you want :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sorry, I was not implying that I want you to delete your account. I was saying that it would be good if people are able to delete their accounts when they want to and not just “get banned” since that doesn’t really do anything
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
There are no good arguments against God. Theres nothing that prohibits God to exist. Maybe we should just stop being atheists? Lets see, what do we do now? Should we look through all 3000 religions and see what they claim and scratch them off one by one? That sounds like its going to take a lot of time, and maybe we wont find him at all so maybe we should look at the biggest ones. Christianity, sadly doesn’t really grab me for countless reasons, sure lets say it can be true but I can’t really force myself to believe in it. Islam… I don’t really think an angel talked to a person in a cave just because a book say so, so sadly Im unconvinced, again. Lets see what else. What about deism. That could be helpful. A little bit of special pleading but…. Anyway… A god that just created everything, gave it a kick start and now its hands off the project. Hmm, it could give the needy people an explanation for whats the first cause etc but theres some problems with that too. How do we really know about that god and why should we really care? Does deism answers anything or just complicates things more? Couldn’t the universe be eternal? Can’t the universe exist out of necessity? We can just say the same things about the universe itself as for a deistic god. Why does it exist? Well because it has to. So adding one more thing in the picture and not answering anything .. doesn’t sound like a better hypothesis to me. If we dont have any good arguments for or against God what do we do? Maybe we should just remove the word “atheism” to make theists happy. We should be called “none”.
Or do we put God in the same category as leprechauns? Do we need any good arguments for our disbelief in leprechauns? I guess so right? Is the fact the you’re simply not convinced in something good enough for you not to believe in it. For some people - no. You need to really really disprove leprechauns, maybe by inventing some kind of inter-dimensional machine and we go check in every possible dimension, take videos, come back here and show it to them. Im sure that won’t suffice too since leprechauns might have unknown powers and can just decide to hide somewhere else if they want to, kinda hard to argue against something that can do literally whatever it wants. The thing is, religious people really hate the fact that you dont need good arguments against god. You dont need to disprove anything that hasn’t been shown to exist in the first place. They might cry and sob that this is a burden of proof game, they might start getting emotional and call you immature loser or not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of god, but at the end of the day I actually understand their frustration. They feel like they always have to do the work, and they always have to defend what they believe. I get it. So sure I can give it to them, theres no good arguments against God. Now what do I do? Aren’t I forced to pick a theism? Well, that didn’t work very well. I guess now we are stuck with not having any evidence for this extraordinary idea that nobody can show is even possible. So at this point its all up to the individual and how willing they are to believe something unprovable and unfalsifiable. Some people decide not to believe things without good reasons, and some people decide otherwise. But be careful and don’t you ever question the reasons of the people who decided otherwise. They do not want to talk about it and they really hate that you can just be unconvinced by lack of evidence. Somehow they don’t understand that atheism just means “i am not convinced that gods exist” and you dont need arguments against gods because atheism doesn’t say “its impossible for gods to exist”. You only need arguments for why you are not convinced. Sadly thats not enough for some of them and they will try to turn the conversation into everything else, asking you irrelevant questions like “CaN yOu ProVe obJeCtIVe ReALIty eXisTs???!!!”
Atheism is not holding any positive beliefs about gods. Atheist is someone who withholds beliefs because they are unconvinced. Atheists are willing to be convinced which is the reason why they asks the opposite side to present their case. Maybe if the other side had a case and didn’t get so defensive they would’ve get it. And whenever they realize they don’t have a reasonable argument for God they will realize thats what makes you an atheist.They think you need to have an argument that disproves God be an atheist. You just need to not be convinced in the existing arguments for God. Sorry for the generalizations btw, there are some theists who are genuine people willing to discuss their true beliefs and the reasons behind them.
Created:
And now that I’m a theist I’ll add “Isaac Newton believed in god, you think he was unreasonable?” and “a lot of tribes were spiritual, you think spiritually doesn’t exist?”. Oh and the best ones “Can you prove objective reality exists and baseball is scientific?”. All that philosophy stuff you know..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
@MAV99
...which is what lead me away from religious beliefs.Funny... It lead me to religious beliefs.Then you're doing it wrongNo, I am not.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yeah I guess if other countries really wanted them they could’ve taken some refugees. So far no one wants them so I guess they are kinda stuck there after all anyway.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Apparently that side of Gaza is under Egyptian blockade.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So are you implying that the statement is a lie/false or just over exaggerated ?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If Muslim nations gave the innocent a way out then it would just be Israel vs the murderous raping terrorists and the annexation of Gaza would be be all but assured.
What would you say in response to someone saying “How can they even leave and go somewhere else if Israel has blockaded everything and is shooting everyone that comes close to the border”.
I have heard things like that and I dont want to sound like a broken record but I have not really researched deeply this so Im curious what is the response to that and how accurate that statement is.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Yes I agree, Hamas is pretty much the government there and they have been democratically elected from the citizens as far as I know.
And about what the solution should be now, I have no idea.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do I know Gandalf did not write Lord of the Rings?
Created:
-->
@RaymondSheen
He wrote it in a book.
Who is he and which book did he write? Are you saying God wrote the Bible?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Could be idk. Im not sure which incident you are referring to exactly. From what I know the jews were purchasing land from the British and the Ottoman Empire. It was especially easy to purchase settlements during the Ottoman period since the ottomans were pretty greedy and corrupt. Many of these lands (farms and homes) were purchased from Arab owners or absentee landlords, and some were also seized through foreclosures. After that, you are correct, they did indeed evict their tenants and sometimes the arabs refused to leave leading to clashes between them.
Created:
-->
@Savant
You misunderstood but its my fault because my English is broken. The physicists react to his claims that have 0 math work (his claims)
Created:
-->
@Savant
I recommend the video in which a dozen of established scientists react to his Kalam argument. It’s quite funny to see actual physicists reacting to his bold assertions with 0 math work behind them .
Created: