• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Death

devildavid said:
An endless number of speculative fantasy beings could exist, in your mind. But being able to imagine something does not give what you imagine the possibility of existence.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about my mind or anyone's mind. That God can exist is hardly arguable. You might not think He does but that is an opinion, not anything grounded in fact. Short of having comprehensive knowledge of everything in the universe you cannot make the claim that God fails to exist. You keep coming back from the position that God doesn't exist and making your argument from that premise but that premise is unprovable by you or anyone else.
 
veritas1 said:
We're not talking about my mind or anyone's mind. That God can exist is hardly arguable. You might not think He does but that is an opinion, not anything grounded in fact. Short of having comprehensive knowledge of everything in the universe you cannot make the claim that God fails to exist. You keep coming back from the position that God doesn't exist and making your argument from that premise but that premise is unprovable by you or anyone else.
Click to expand...

It is arguable that non-material entities can exist. It is arguable that anything non-material exists as anything more than a concept. There is nothing special about the god concept.
 
veritas1 said:
You do not know that God is imaginary. That is the point you fail to grasp. Not having seen God doesn't mean He's imaginary anymore than not having seen atoms or bacteria made them imaginary before they were discovered. Christ was certainly not imaginary.
Click to expand...

Atoms and bacteria are physical. Jesus was a physical human being. What is god supposed to be?
 
Death can't be that bad. There's a Beer Volcano and a Stripper Factory on the other side.
 
RobertU said:
Yes, there is a real live Bambi. And Thumper too:

Click to expand...


Hmmmmm, I'll try one more time with this one... Read closely...

Bambi DOES exist. There were a couple Disney movies featuring Bambi, and I believe the first movie was based on a book about Bambi.

As to Bambi's physical existence, it cannot be proven either way.
 
gfm7175 said:
Hmmmmm, I'll try one more time with this one... Read closely...

Bambi DOES exist. There were a couple Disney movies featuring Bambi, and I believe the first movie was based on a book about Bambi.

As to Bambi's physical existence, it cannot be proven either way.
Click to expand...

Yes, fictional characters exist as fictional characters. Fictional characters exist physically. Nothing can be proven about anything, but physical evidence either can or can't be presented in the case of a real life baby deer named Bambi. Of course the deer would have been named by a human being.
 
PoS said:
Reality has no biases.
Click to expand...
"Reality" is, believe it or not, slightly different for each and every person...

PoS said:
If there was even just a minuscule piece of evidence for the existence of a vast supernatural being that created everything [removed anti-theism bias],
Click to expand...
There IS evidence... quite a bit of evidence actually... The Bible is evidence, for starters... The universe is more evidence... But evidence is NOT proof, however.

PoS said:
then there would be no atheists
Click to expand...
False. Jesus was right here on Earth teaching people God's Word with a kind of authority never seen before (or will be seen again), and performing various miracles for people to see and believe, yet mankind ended up crucifying their own Savior as a blasphemer. So even with physical "evidence", many people still didn't believe. God himself coming down here (again) in all of his glory would not even result in there being no atheists...

PoS said:
but there is nothing, nothing at all.
Click to expand...
False. There is evidence all around you. You fail to recognize it as evidence because you wrongly believe that evidence and proof are synonymous.
 
HumblePi said:
I believe what comes after death will be the same as what came before life, a big black nothing. Religions have only been a method used by powerful men to keep people controlled.
Click to expand...

Atheism has only been a method used by powerful men to keep people controlled?


Also, religion is not a method. Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.
 
gfm7175 said:
"Reality" is, believe it or not, slightly different for each and every person...


There IS evidence... quite a bit of evidence actually... The Bible is evidence, for starters... The universe is more evidence... But evidence is NOT proof, however.


False. Jesus was right here on Earth teaching people God's Word with a kind of authority never seen before (or will be seen again), and performing various miracles for people to see and believe, yet mankind ended up crucifying their own Savior as a blasphemer. So even with physical "evidence", many people still didn't believe. God himself coming down here (again) in all of his glory would not even result in there being no atheists...


False. There is evidence all around you. You fail to recognize it as evidence because you wrongly believe that evidence and proof are synonymous.
Click to expand...

iafcmyy.jpg
 
gfm7175 said:
Atheism has only been a method used by powerful men to keep people controlled?


Also, religion is not a method. Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.
Click to expand...

LOL! "initial circular argument with arguments stemming from it." I must say, that's one of the most creative lines of total bull that I've read on this site yet.

Wrong. Religion is basically nothing more than a belief in a supernatural or superhuman entity or greater power.
 
PoS said:
iafcmyy.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes, Christianity (and any religion, actually) is circular reasoning (based on an initial circular argument). However, circular reasoning IS logically valid through the proof of identity. It is logically valid because the conclusion follows from the predicate(s). A circular argument is NOT a logical fallacy UNLESS one doesn't recognize the circular nature of their argumentation (in other words, when one becomes a fundamentalist).
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, Christianity (and any religion, actually) is circular reasoning (based on an initial circular argument). However, circular reasoning IS logically valid through the proof of identity. It is logically valid because the conclusion follows from the predicate(s). A circular argument is NOT a logical fallacy UNLESS one doesn't recognize the circular nature of their argumentation (in other words, when one becomes a fundamentalist).
Click to expand...

Being a valid argument does not mean all that much. It simply means that the conclusion follows from the premise.
That you keep bringing up that your argument is valid merely demonstrates your desperation to pretend you are being logical. But all it really does is show that you do not understand what logic is or how it works..

For example, the following argument is also valid.

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Your argument of belief being circular is no better than the toaster argument. In fact it is equal in that each premise and conclusion is false, yet is still a valid argument.

Please do yourself a favour and go and learn something about logic. Then you will stop embarrassing yourself by pretending a circular valid argument of god is worth anything more than the toaster argument.
 
soylentgreen said:
Being a valid argument does not mean all that much. It simply means that the conclusion follows from the premise.
Click to expand...
It means quite a bit. It means that one is reasoning rationally.

soylentgreen said:
That you keep bringing up that your argument is valid merely demonstrates your desperation to pretend you are being logical.
Click to expand...
No, I am being logical; there is no "pretending" involved here.

soylentgreen said:
But all it really does is show that you do not understand what logic is or how it works..
Click to expand...
Inversion fallacy. YOU are the one who doesn't understand how it works. I understand it just fine.

soylentgreen said:
For example, the following argument is also valid.

All toasters are items made of gold.
All items made of gold are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is valid in form.

soylentgreen said:
Your argument of belief being circular is no better than the toaster argument.
Click to expand...
Faulty Comparison fallacy... The toaster argument is falsifiable (and has been falsified); Christianity is no longer falsifiable.

soylentgreen said:
In fact it is equal in that each premise and conclusion is false, yet is still a valid argument.
Click to expand...
I don't accept this as a fact. In your toaster example, yes that is true, but that is not true in my religion example. Like I explained above, Christianity cannot be proven either way, but your toaster example can in fact be (and has been) falsified.

soylentgreen said:
...deleted various mantras...
a circular valid argument of god is [not] worth anything more than the toaster argument.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Earlier in this response, I have explained why that is.
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Atheism has only been a method used by powerful men to keep people controlled?


Also, religion is not a method. Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.
Click to expand...

Give one example of this from an actual real life religion. Be specific.
 
gfm7175 said:
It means quite a bit. It means that one is reasoning rationally.
Click to expand...
No, it means one is making a valid argument. Even insane people can do that.




No, I am being logical; there is no "pretending" involved here.
Click to expand...
No, you are pretending you understand logic, but in fact, do not.

Inversion fallacy. YOU are the one who doesn't understand how it works. I understand it just fine.
Click to expand...
Good example. Every time someone disagrees with you, you throw in a fallacy. Demonstrating you do not understand how a fallacy works if you think it is something to say because someone disagrees with you.


Yes, it is valid in form.


Faulty Comparison fallacy... The toaster argument is falsifiable (and has been falsified); Christianity is no longer falsifiable.
Click to expand...
Christianity is based on myth. It has no business with science or scientific methods. You are doing nothing ore here than to falsely present christianity as if it is subject to a science.
I don't accept this as a fact. In your toaster example, yes that is true, but that is not true in my religion example. Like I explained above, Christianity cannot be proven either way, but your toaster example can in fact be (and has been) falsified.
Click to expand...

You are missing a step here. There is no reason given in the first place as to why christianity needs to be proven. I would not waste effort proving santa clause and as christianity is no better a story than santa then it does not need to be proven.

Again your mistake is to think christianity has some sort of truth to it without even giving a good reason as to why it should be considered such.
Yes, it is. Earlier in this response, I have explained why that is.
Click to expand...

No, there is nothing in your response that explains it. there is your presumption that we should consider christianity to be more than just a myth, but no substance to that presumption.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yes, Christianity (and any religion, actually) is circular reasoning (based on an initial circular argument). However, circular reasoning IS logically valid through the proof of identity. It is logically valid because the conclusion follows from the predicate(s). A circular argument is NOT a logical fallacy UNLESS one doesn't recognize the circular nature of their argumentation (in other words, when one becomes a fundamentalist).
Click to expand...

Wrong. Circular reasoning IS a logical fallacy, and your arguments are a textbook example of it.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, it means one is making a valid argument.
Click to expand...
...and making a valid argument is reasoning rationally.

soylentgreen said:
Even insane people can do that.
Click to expand...
So?

soylentgreen said:
No, you are pretending you understand logic, but in fact, do not.
Click to expand...
I've shown understanding of it; you have not.

soylentgreen said:
Good example. Every time someone disagrees with you, you throw in a fallacy. Demonstrating you do not understand how a fallacy works if you think it is something to say because someone disagrees with you.
Click to expand...
False. I only "throw in a fallacy" whenever I catch someone committing a logical fallacy. I typically explain the what and why behind the fallacy the first time one commits it, since I do know how they work, as I had done with you. I am well aware that disagreements are not logical fallacies.

soylentgreen said:
Christianity is based on myth.
Click to expand...
You have your religious beliefs, and I have mine. You can't prove your beliefs just as I can't prove mine. Religion is an open functional system; there are no proofs in open functional systems.

soylentgreen said:
It has no business with science or scientific methods.
Click to expand...
I do agree that science is not religion and religion is not science. There are no such things as "scientific methods"... What precisely are these "methods" of which you speak? Science does not consist of "methods".

soylentgreen said:
You are doing nothing ore here than to falsely present christianity as if it is subject to a science.
Click to expand...
Strawman fallacy. I have never asserted that religion is subject to science. They are two separate things. However, I am willing to bet that your definition of science allows religion to be simultaneously accepted and rejected as scientific theory (in other words, a paradox -- thus, irrational reasoning). So this is most likely also an Inversion fallacy on your part.

soylentgreen said:
You are missing a step here. There is no reason given in the first place as to why christianity needs to be proven. I would not waste effort proving santa clause and as christianity is no better a story than santa then it does not need to be proven.
Click to expand...
Christianity CAN'T be proven either way... Neither can Atheism... Religions can not be proven because Religion is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems have the power of proof.

soylentgreen said:
Again your mistake is to think christianity has some sort of truth to it without even giving a good reason as to why it should be considered such.
Click to expand...
First off, this is a Strawman on your part... I've actually argued the opposite, within the very same comment you're responding to in fact (that Christianity CAN'T be proven true). Secondly, it would not be a "mistake" for me to think that Christianity is true (as circular reasoning is logically valid), and I don't even need ANY reason to think it's true in order to believe it. Same goes for Atheism and all other religions.

soylentgreen said:
No, there is nothing in your response that explains it. there is your presumption that we should consider christianity to be more than just a myth, but no substance to that presumption.
Click to expand...
Yes there was, and like I said earlier, I never made such a presumption. Strawman Argument fallacy.
 
PoS said:
Wrong. Circular reasoning IS a logical fallacy,
Click to expand...
ONLY if one tries to prove it (in other words, becomes a fundamentalist). Another word for circular reasoning is "faith", and faith is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. We all believe MANY things based on faith, whether faith may be necessary for that belief or not.

PoS said:
and your arguments are a textbook example of it.
Click to expand...
Which arguments, precisely?

Otherwise, I will write this assertion off as an Argument of the Stone fallacy...
 
gfm7175 said:
ONLY if one tries to prove it (in other words, becomes a fundamentalist). Another word for circular reasoning is "faith", and faith is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. We all believe MANY things based on faith, whether faith may be necessary for that belief or not.


Which arguments, precisely?

Otherwise, I will write this assertion off as an Argument of the Stone fallacy...
Click to expand...

No, circular reasoning is always a logical fallacy under all conditions. Stop making up your own rules and fallacies. They are baseless.
 
Birth is consciousness identifying with a body.
Death is consciousness disidentifying with a body.

That's the way I see it. Everything in between is sort of an illusory dog and pony show that the transient ego strongly believes in but actually has no substance. Then the body dies and the clinging ego with it, and the entire system dissolves back into what it always was from the get go. For this reason, birth and death are also illusions. They have appearance and they are happening but they are not the truth.

Human identification is the beginning of duality, but the universe is not inherently dualistic. It is one thing. You need a mind for there to be duality and it's duality which prevents us from resolving this question.

To put it simply: you're asking what happens to you when you die. Nothing happens because there is no real "you" that anything is happening to.
 
gfm7175 said:
...and making a valid argument is reasoning rationally.


So?


I've shown understanding of it; you have not.


False. I only "throw in a fallacy" whenever I catch someone committing a logical fallacy. I typically explain the what and why behind the fallacy the first time one commits it, since I do know how they work, as I had done with you. I am well aware that disagreements are not logical fallacies.


You have your religious beliefs, and I have mine. You can't prove your beliefs just as I can't prove mine. Religion is an open functional system; there are no proofs in open functional systems.


I do agree that science is not religion and religion is not science. There are no such things as "scientific methods"... What precisely are these "methods" of which you speak? Science does not consist of "methods".


Strawman fallacy. I have never asserted that religion is subject to science. They are two separate things. However, I am willing to bet that your definition of science allows religion to be simultaneously accepted and rejected as scientific theory (in other words, a paradox -- thus, irrational reasoning). So this is most likely also an Inversion fallacy on your part.


Christianity CAN'T be proven either way... Neither can Atheism... Religions can not be proven because Religion is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems have the power of proof.


First off, this is a Strawman on your part... I've actually argued the opposite, within the very same comment you're responding to in fact (that Christianity CAN'T be proven true). Secondly, it would not be a "mistake" for me to think that Christianity is true (as circular reasoning is logically valid), and I don't even need ANY reason to think it's true in order to believe it. Same goes for Atheism and all other religions.


Yes there was, and like I said earlier, I never made such a presumption. Strawman Argument fallacy.
Click to expand...

You are trying to elevate a superstitious belief to something science needs to deal with. And failed to even understand what science is or how it works. That you need to ask what the scientific methods are shows that quite well.

You throw random fallacy complaints because it is easier than actually trying to reply to the argument made. You even ignore arguments made by ignoring the fact that insane people do not argue rationally even though they can make a valid argument. Just as you have done with your false beliefs about science, logic and atheism.

In all, your main problem is that you make **** up and then pretend anyone pointing out what **** you talk is them making a fallacy rather than you talking ****..
 
devildavid said:
No, circular reasoning is always a logical fallacy under all conditions. Stop making up your own rules and fallacies. They are baseless.
Click to expand...

No, it's not... Just think about it for a second... Let me ask you this:

How do you, devildavid, validate your reasoning skills?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom