• 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!

[W:1303]***To Believe or Not To Believe

Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Peter King said:
I don't rebel against god, I don't believe in magic creatures. And it is true, I have no religious doctrines in which I believe. That does not imply I have no values, thoughts, political things I support, etc. etc. etc.

Only someone with no independent thoughts of himself can claim that not believing in magic creatures is an unthinking position. In fact I like to think we think about as much as most religious people and more than a large chunk of religious people.
Click to expand...

Why do Christains rebel against Krishna?
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

pinqy said:
To blatantly steal: atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.
Click to expand...

Yup, I've heard that one parroted before numerous times... It still doesn't change the definition of religion, and it still doesn't change the definition of atheism.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

pinqy said:
Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player of al time.
Babe Ruth is the greatest player of all time.
The statements cannot both be true at the same time, so they contradict. But there’s no paradox involved: just two competing claims. And they could both be false...Lou Gehrig could be the greatest baseball player of all time.
Click to expand...
Simultaneously arguing both of those claims would form a paradox, as both of them can't be the greatest player of all time. You must accept one of the arguments and then completely and utterly reject the other one in order to clear that paradox.

pinqy said:
Additionally we could have Ruth and Gehrig playing together on the Yankees, and in the first half of the season Ruth has the higher batting average. In the second half of the season, Ruth again has the higher batting average. But for the overall season, Gehrig has the higher batting average. Paradox...but no contradiction.
Click to expand...
Okay... If we take "greatest during one season", and use your objective standard of 'batting average' to determine who is the greater player during one season, then your statistics about the first half and second half of the season (where Ruth was 'greater') are completely irrelevant statistics (as only the numbers at the end of the season are relevant in determining who is the greatest player during one season). In this case, that would obviously mean that Gehrig was greater than Ruth. No paradox, no contradiction... The paradox and contradiction would come in if you argued that both Gehrig AND Ruth were the greatest player during one season.

So, I still rest my case that all contradictions are paradoxes.

pinqy said:
Nor does claiming paradox cause one to exist.
Click to expand...
Correct. My claim of "you are arguing a paradox" doesn't cause the paradox to exist, rather your simultaneous arguments in support of two conflicting viewpoints causes it to exist.

pinqy said:
If I claimed both to be true, there would be a contradiction, but not a paradox.
Click to expand...
Yes there would be... It would be irrational to claim both to be true, as only one can possibly be 'the greatest'.

pinqy said:
It is entirely possible for someone to contradict themselves, or to make two arguments that don’t agree.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. You are living proof of that. You have argued numerous contradictions over our correspondence history. They all have been paradoxes.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Peter King said:
Again, wrong, did you not read the definition?
Click to expand...
I dismissed it on sight due to the definition coming from a False Authority. You committed the False Authority Fallacy.

Peter King said:
Well, I posted the definition of religion, please prove that atheism is a religion. Because that someone believes it is a religion is as said nonsense.
Click to expand...
And it was a false authority. Prove Philosophy? Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

Peter King said:
No, what you claim is nonsense. Pure and simple. To claim that not having a faith is a faith/religion is the actual argument of stone fallacy, and BS of course.
Click to expand...
Do you have faith in that claim of yours?

Peter King said:
Great, more nonsense.
Click to expand...
Inversion Fallacy.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

devildavid said:
The definition of belief is not circular argument. You are wrong and can't demonstrate otherwise. As a people I know the true definition of belief. And I know it is not circular argument. It is an acceptance that something is true. It has nothing to do with arguments.
Click to expand...

It is an acceptance that a circular argument is true... a conclusion based on a circular argument...
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

gfm7175 said:
Yup, I've heard that one parroted before numerous times... It still doesn't change the definition of religion, and it still doesn't change the definition of atheism.
Click to expand...
It's from the New Atheist Playbook. These internet atheists haven't had an original thought in fifteen years. I'm almost embarrassed for them.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Angel said:
It's from the New Atheist Playbook. These internet atheists haven't had an original thought in fifteen years. I'm almost embarrassed for them.
Click to expand...

As opposed to those christians who havent had an original thought in 1500+ years...
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

gfm7175 said:
Yup, I've heard that one parroted before numerous times... It still doesn't change the definition of religion, and it still doesn't change the definition of atheism.
Click to expand...

The problem is that I know the definition of religion and you don't. My definition came from me. As a person, my definition is valid. My definition of atheism is also the correct one because I am the source of it. That is where definitions come from. They come from me.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

gfm7175 said:
It is an acceptance that a circular argument is true... a conclusion based on a circular argument...
Click to expand...

Atheism is lack of belief because atheism is lack of belief.

I accept this circular argument so it is true.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

devildavid said:
Atheism is lack of belief because atheism is lack of belief.

I accept this circular argument so it is true.
Click to expand...

You accept that circular argument as a true, so it is your belief.

Your argument is self refuting, since your 'lack of belief' is your belief...
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

PoS said:
As opposed to those christians who havent had an original thought in 1500+ years...
Click to expand...
You know how it is -- when you come up with a Pythagorean theorem of a thought, what's 2500 or even 3000 years?
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Angel said:
You know how it is -- when you come up with a Pythagorean theorem of a thought, what's 2500 or even 3000 years?
Click to expand...

2 thousand years of nonsense...
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

PoS said:
2 thousand years of nonsense...
Click to expand...
Hey, I understand. Some of us just don't get geometry.
 
Last edited:
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

gfm7175 said:
I dismissed it on sight due to the definition coming from a False Authority. You committed the False Authority Fallacy.
Click to expand...

False authority? :lamo

The only thing false I see is your comment.


gfm7175 said:
And it was a false authority. Prove Philosophy? Argument of the Stone Fallacy.
Click to expand...

No, it just shows you have no argument/no definition. That is just plain nonsense. I did not expect anything else.

gfm7175 said:
Do you have faith in that claim of yours?
Click to expand...

Yup, just look at the translation of atheism from the Greek is "without god(s)". I am 100% sure, as an atheist that is.

gfm7175 said:
Inversion Fallacy.
Click to expand...

Nope, just pointing out you are stating things that are total nonsense.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

"What has been is what will be,
And what has been done will be done again;
There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

gfm7175 said:
Simultaneously arguing both of those claims would form a paradox, as both of them can't be the greatest player of all time. You must accept one of the arguments and then completely and utterly reject the other one in order to clear that paradox.
Click to expand...
No. A paradox would be if logically, both had to be true at the same time.
This statement is false.
So if it is true, then it is false. And if it is false, then it is true. The CONCLUSION is contradictory.



Okay... If we take "greatest during one season", and use your objective standard of 'batting average' to determine who is the greater player
Click to expand...
Why would we do that? I didn’t say anything about determine greatest player by batting average. Don’t go changing my example, that is dishonest. Try again.

Oh but let’s use a real-world example:
In 1995, Derek Jeter  went 12/48 avg .250 in 1996, he went 183/582 for avg .314 and in 1997 he went 195/630 for avg .310
For the same years, David Justice went 104/411 avg .253  1996 was 45/140 for avg .321, and 1997 he went 149/551 for avg .270.
Each year, Justice had the better batting average. Therefore we would logically conclude that for all 3 years together, his batting average is higher. But it’s not. A true conclusion that appears absurd. This is Simpson’s Paradox, and has many examples and applications.


Yes there would be... It would be irrational to claim both to be true, as only one can possibly be 'the greatest'.
Click to expand...
But it would only be a paradox if the logical conclusion was that both were true. In the liars paradox I used earlier, the sentence has to be true and false and is therefore a paradox. For greatest ball player, it is a logical conclusion that at least one claim is wrong, and that doesn’t affect anything.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

devildavid said:
The problem is that I know the definition of religion and you don't. My definition came from me. As a person, my definition is valid. My definition of atheism is also the correct one because I am the source of it. That is where definitions come from. They come from me.
Click to expand...
" 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' "

Humpty Dumpty | Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

gfm7175 said:
...addressing the parts of your response which I ignored earlier this morning...


Not sure about you, but I'm not...


The experience and interpretation of sensory stimuli.


Fine, I'll just address the "generic scientific method" which you propose.

1) [FORM A HYPOTHESIS] You can't form a hypothesis unless you first have a theory to form it around.
Click to expand...
Why not?
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

hypothesis

noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

gfm7175 said:
Care to form any counterarguments to his assertion, or to just continue insulting his intelligence?
Click to expand...

He probably doesn't have any. That's why he's turning to making insults. Throwing insult after insult like that is a pretty clear indication that they have lost the argument.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Peter King said:
Again, wrong, did you not read the definition?



Well, I posted the definition of religion, please prove that atheism is a religion. Because that someone believes it is a religion is as said nonsense.



No, what you claim is nonsense. Pure and simple. To claim that not having a faith is a faith/religion is the actual argument of stone fallacy, and BS of course.



Great, more nonsense.
Click to expand...

It is a religion. It is based on an initial circular argument, with arguments extending from it. That is a religion. In this case the initial circular argument (or argument of faith) is that no god, gods, or spirits exist.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Peter King said:
More nonsense pushers. I don't believe in god. Pure and simple, it is not a circular argument, it is not a faith and not a religion.
Click to expand...

It is a circular argument. It is a faith. It is a religion.
 
Re: To Believe or Not To Believe

Cephus said:
Unfortunately. So it's another lunatic theist into my ignore list. If they can't handle themselves like rational adults, I have no time for them.
Click to expand...

Giving up eh? Seeya then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom