Author Topic: I Challenge You To a Debate  (Read 13284 times)

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2014, 10:32:51 AM »
You're a theist. There is no debate. Just you being evasive, moving the goal post and generally being a frustrating little shit.

We're tired of it. You should be too, but your delusion apparently goes far enough that you don't even see how boring talking to you is.
No different than talking to a BigFooter, a UFOer, or a "The Gubbermint dun it!"er.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2014, 12:11:29 PM »
It is true that my debate partner and I will need to come to an agreement on the definition of God. I will first need a debate partner to discuss this with. Are there any challengers?

Mister Agenda and Hakurei Reimu seem like good candidates.

I will also need a moderator who will be fair and thorough. Are there any moderator candidates?

Thanks for the kind words, Casparov! I'm afraid all I really have to say about the God of monist idealism is that evidence for or against it is impossible because under that system, evidence can't refer to anything real. The most it can be is internally consistent with God's mental construct, until God changes its mind and something else is consistent. That's pretty much it: it's not impossible that monist idealism is the case, but it's impossible to support the contention with evidence, which only makes sense in the context of a universe which is not purely a mental construct. If we're in a simulated universe within an actual physical universe, it's conceivable to obtain evidence of that, but not in a purely mental universe. Any such evidence would be mere illusion, as we would not actually be in a simulated universe within a physical universe.

If I felt that I had much more than that to offer on the topic, I would volunteer, although I usually avoid formal debates due to fear of committment. :)
« Last Edit: April 21, 2014, 12:13:12 PM by Mister Agenda »
Atheists are not anti-Christian. They are anti-stupid.--WitchSabrina

Offline leo

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2014, 03:16:19 PM »
 
"Yes I am. I am also a [Hindu], a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew" - Gandhi
                                                                                                                                                    Buttt  buddhists don't believe in a creator god. Infact that's a wrong view according to the Buddha. :winkle:
Religion is Bullshit  . The winner of the last person to post wins thread .

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2014, 05:19:49 PM »
Hi Casparov! You and I have never interacted (yet anyway), and I was willing to take you up on the offer. So I got interested in learning a thing or two about the interlocutor, as I usually do, and I just got caught up, mostly, with your "I believe god exists".
And after having read almost all of it (I have about 6 pages to go out of 26), I have come to the conclusion that to agree to a debate would be, ultimately, a fruitless endeavor at best, a time waster at worst. And if I were to be asked by somebody to pick one of the best reasons, based on the thread I mentioned above, it would be this statement:
"this is the opinion of a Neurologist, not evidence"
And the reason that stands out the most is because it appears to be the common tactic in dismissing counter-arguments, and yet in the same reply you do the same thing - use what anyone else would be justified to likewise label "not evidence, just the opinion of XYZ".

I hope you find what you are looking for Casparov, but what you've offered thus far is very underwhelming, unpersuasive and in fact shows supect debate tactics.
I can understand how it can be frustrating to not find what you are looking for. You should also ask yourself "what did I do to contribute to this issue".

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2014, 06:26:00 PM »
I have provided a concise definition of god no less than 5 separate times on this forum already. The definition of god I will defend is the exact same one.
No, no you haven't. You've come up with mealy-mouthed vague notions of something divine-like, but no definitions as required for a logical debate.

I'm sorry but after being called a "dishonest cunt" without provocation I withdraw my statement that you are good candidate. I seem to have mistaken you for a decent human being able to converse in a civilized manner with people who disagree with you.
Oh, I have no problem discussing things with people who disagree with me. It's the dishonest cunts I have problems with.

I don't debate with people who lead with ad hominem attacks.

And I don't debate people who lead in with dishonesty. Hence, calling you a dishonest cunt.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • *
  • Posts: 4973
  • Total likes: 1634
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Pathos
Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2014, 09:23:27 PM »
Reimu is a Touhou fan and is, by default, a decent human being. :P


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.

Offline aitm

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2014, 09:40:44 PM »
HEY! There'll be NO japanese love fest while I am here!
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Offline Casparov (OP)

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #37 on: April 22, 2014, 12:40:19 AM »
Hi Casparov! You and I have never interacted (yet anyway), and I was willing to take you up on the offer. So I got interested in learning a thing or two about the interlocutor, as I usually do, and I just got caught up, mostly, with your "I believe god exists".
And after having read almost all of it (I have about 6 pages to go out of 26), I have come to the conclusion that to agree to a debate would be, ultimately, a fruitless endeavor at best, a time waster at worst. And if I were to be asked by somebody to pick one of the best reasons, based on the thread I mentioned above, it would be this statement:
"this is the opinion of a Neurologist, not evidence"
And the reason that stands out the most is because it appears to be the common tactic in dismissing counter-arguments, and yet in the same reply you do the same thing - use what anyone else would be justified to likewise label "not evidence, just the opinion of XYZ".

I hope you find what you are looking for Casparov, but what you've offered thus far is very underwhelming, unpersuasive and in fact shows supect debate tactics.
I can understand how it can be frustrating to not find what you are looking for. You should also ask yourself "what did I do to contribute to this issue".

If I find a neurologist that says that consciousness exists independent of the brain, would you accept that as proof? If not, then I don't understand why you are concerned that I do not accept it as proof when someone presents to me a neurologist who has the opposing opinion.

Debating the evidence is something else entirely. If someone presents to me an experiment conducted by neurologists that seems to indicate that the brain produces consciousness, I will be very interested in examining and discussing the evidence presented. But I will accept the "opinion" of an expert as evidence no more readily then you will accept the "opinion" of an expert as evidence. Otherwise I could just find a biologist who's opinion is that creationism is true, and this would be evidence of creationism.

The point is, there is a distinct difference between "evidence" and "the opinion of an expert".

I hope you reconsider, but I respect your decision if you decline.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 12:48:29 AM by Casparov »
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Casparov (OP)

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #38 on: April 22, 2014, 12:47:43 AM »
I would think only forum Mods should be eligible to be Debate Moderators. The Formal Debate thread itself should be limited to posts by the two debaters and the Moderator and all speculation on the ongoings should be limited to the Peanut Gallery.

If the existence of God is too grandiose a topic perhaps we could break it down into smaller topics. Here are a few I am prepared to debate:

The Existence of Life After Death

The Ramifications of Quantum Physics

Materialism vs Idealism


and of course The Existence of God remains on the table as well
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • *
  • Posts: 4973
  • Total likes: 1634
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Pathos
Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #39 on: April 22, 2014, 01:04:44 AM »
If the existence of God is too fucking stupid a topic
FIFY.

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #40 on: April 22, 2014, 04:45:51 AM »
If I find a neurologist that says that consciousness exists independent of the brain, would you accept that as proof? If not, then I don't understand why you are concerned that I do not accept it as proof when someone presents to me a neurologist who has the opposing opinion.

You could probably find a neurologist that will say anything.   What you need to do is demonstrate that consciousness exists independently from a brain.  Good luck with that!
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #41 on: April 22, 2014, 07:53:22 AM »
Debates do nothing but contribute to AGW.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #42 on: April 22, 2014, 12:51:21 PM »
I'm afraid I'm still very much unclear of whatever the fuck you mean when you use the word 'god'.

Is it the hive mind thing you said we share with rocks and stuff?
The "ultimate reality" whatever that is?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 01:00:06 PM by Bibliofagus »
Quote from: \"the_antithesis\"
Faith says, "I believe this and I don\'t care what you say, I cannot possibly be wrong." Faith is an act of pride.

Quote from: \"AllPurposeAtheist\"
The moral high ground was dug up and made into a walmart apparently today.

Tornadoes caused: 2, maybe 3.

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #43 on: April 22, 2014, 03:07:57 PM »
If I find a neurologist that says that consciousness exists independent of the brain, would you accept that as proof? If not, then I don't understand why you are concerned that I do not accept it as proof when someone presents to me a neurologist who has the opposing opinion.

Hellow again Casparov.

Firstly, there is a difference between proof and evidence; the discussion was about evidence. Secondly, the point I was making was that if you dismiss the conclusion of a neurologist on the basis that it is just an opinion, then, like I said, you're hardly in a position to provide counterpoints because they can likewise be simply dismissed as counter opinions and that leaves us nowhere.
In other words what you did there was nothing less than hand-waiving since you provided nothing to support your dismissal. A proper dismissal would be one that addresses the argument and shows that despite the fact that the author is an expert in his own field, his conclusion is not supported by any evidence and is therefore a scientifically unsound hypothesis.

As to your question if you find a neurologist that has proof (maybe you meant evidence) that consciousness exists independent of the brain, it doesn't matter to me who the neurologist and what they are saying. What matters to me is the evidence. Is it valid?
I do not wish to open a discussion here since that other thread exists, but as it stands all current scientific knowledge points to the fact that consciousness is an emergent property of our physical brain. I am sure that Sam Harris is waiting with baited breath for evidence to the contrary, that he can examine. In fact, he said so himself on numerous occasions. Most scientists do; most find that being wrong is as exhilarating as being right, since it opens the opportunity for discovery.

As to the definition of god, after having reviewed the other thread, I am inclined to agree with what has been said here, that I have yet to see a comprehensive, intelligible definition of what you mean when you say "god".
There are many outstanding, unresolved logical issues with proposed attributes to the concept that humans describe as a god. As a very simple example, consider the attribute of absoluteness. Absolutely just and absolutely merciful. One cannot be both, it is illogical.
The other issue is that of attributing traits to the concept of deities that are highly desirable or sought after by humans. And then you can clearly see, throughout the history of cultures, how these traits have changed along with the deities.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2014, 03:36:34 PM by Shol'va »

Offline Casparov (OP)

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #44 on: April 22, 2014, 03:36:06 PM »
I'm afraid I'm still very much unclear of whatever the fuck you mean when you use the word 'god'.

Is it the hive mind thing you said we share with rocks and stuff?
The "ultimate reality" whatever that is?

I am a Monist Idealist Pantheist if you understand this term you understand my definition of god.

The god i believe in is very similar to the description of "Brahman" described in Hindu traditions, if you understand the concept of Brahman, you understand my definition of god.

I believe god is analogous to the tenth dimension in Rob Bryanton's description of ten dimensions: http://youtu.be/hf2CxZPl7KI If you understand what the tenth dimension is in conjunction with Idealism, you understand my definition of god.

In a single word, I identify as a Panentheist, and in a concise definition, I have provided:

god noun \gäd also gȯd\
   : The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being : Infinite Mind.

I believe there is only one thing that actually exists, and it is God, and we are all parts of it.
“The Fanatical Atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of other spheres.” - Albert Einstein