Author Topic: I Challenge You To a Debate  (Read 45573 times)

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #60 on: April 23, 2014, 07:11:39 AM »
Most of you agree that Materialism is true, which is to say that an external Material Universe exists. To call this "god" would be silly, which is the point you are making.

I thought that was the point you were making.  I'm not making a point.

You seem to have ignored the part where I say I am a "Monist Idealist" which means I am not a Materialist, I believe that consciousness is fundamental rather than material objects, therefore I am saying something entirely different than simply "the material universe is god".

Since it can already be demonstrated that conciousness comes from a material brain, you've got a lot of work on your hands to try and turn that around.

I am saying that consciousness is fundamental to reality, and I define god is the entire consciousness system as a whole, which we are parts and pieces of.

I am astonished that you read "Monist Idealist Pantheist" and took from it that I was simply saying "the universe is god" I doubt you are an Idealist rather than a Materialist, and so I doubt that you "agree" that what I am talking about is true.

Again, I am forced to defend simple definitions against willing ignorance.

What exactly do you think consciousness is?
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 #61 on: April 23, 2014, 07:24:39 AM »
No silly. You are very very confused, because you are a Materialist, and you believe that everyone everywhere must also be a materialist, you have concluded that "monism" means that the universe is made of one "form" of matter/energy. You demonstrate how limited your view of the world is.

Monism : Monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. (this has absolutely nothing to do with matter/energy, but only indicates that the fundamental nature of reality is singular rather than dualistic.)

No silly. You are entirely ignorant of any view of the world outside of your own limited conception. Therefore you have incorrectly identified the meaning of Idealism in a gross demonstration of your own ignorance and laziness. A simple google search of "Idealism" and "Monism" would have cleared all of this up for you very quickly, but apparently that was too much to ask, so here I am having to do the work for you.

Idealism does not mean "that there is a material and immaterial world" that is called Dualism, which I do not subscribe to obviously, because I have stated that I am a Monist.... I do not believe that there is a material world, only an immaterial world.

Idealism : is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

I do not typically identify as a Pantheist but in conjunction with "Monist Idealist" I (wrongly) thought this would assist you in comprehending what I mean by the word "god". Consciousness as the fundamental singular reality and God encompassing all. But you have demonstrated the amazing ability to turn "Monist Idealist" into "Dualist/Materialist" and so "Pantheism" in conjunction with your definitions has become the same old tired "The Material Universe with the label God slapped onto it" ideology which I do not subscribe to even a tiny bit.

Without the qualifier "Monist Idealist" I refrain from calling myself "Pantheist" because people typically hear that word and think "Material universe as God" which is not an accurate description of my ideology, so when I give a one word description of my beliefs I give the word "Panentheism" to distinguish what I believe from the typical conception of Pantheism.

Panentheism : In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe.

This post of yours is the perfect example of why I hesitated to provide a description of god in a public thread like this. Now I am forced to make replies like this one, explaining to the lowest common denominator of the forum the simple definitions which anyone can easily look up on their own to clear up the false information you are spreading. You simply made up your own definitions and then said they were incoherent.

Yes, your made up definitions were incoherent. Well done. The actual definitions however, are not. You insinuate that "monism" is not compatible with "Idealism" according to how you have defined them. (maybe because you defined "Monism" as "Materialism" and "Idealism" as "Dualism")

I am astounded by the ignorance of this post, this is exactly what I was trying to avoid having to do....

So much hatred in this one, point out the errors and he goes nanners. I don't know where you got your definitions but they don't fit any of the ones that are posted on websites explaining the different between these ideologies and the dictionary definitions themselves. I'm sorry that your grasp of the English language isn't good enough to understand that 1 does not equal 2. I'm also sorry that you think you have the power to tell me what I think without me telling you and for it to be true. This is called having a god complex; now your belief in a god makes sense, in your mind you are god.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 07:26:32 AM by Icarus »

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #62 on: April 23, 2014, 10:18:19 AM »
Im sure if a fundamentalist Christian walked in here claiming that evolution is wrong and the earth was 6000 years old and demanded a debate, there would be no less that 100 takers competing to be the one who gets to the slaughter the lamb at the alter. Atheist love shooting fish in a barrel, but never want to go deep sea fishing.
Please note that the Formal Debates subforum, the one that's actually moderated, is a barren wasteland that has all of two threads in it, and that's in the peanut gallery. Are you really saying that no fundamentalist Christians have waltzed in demanding a debate from us since its creation?

No, you don't offer any deep sea fishing. It's the same kind of shallow shit those fundies present, and like them you don't seem aware of how shallow your position is, and how it is based on strawmanning and semantics whoring. Both of these are dishonest debate tactics, by the way. This is why I refuse to debate with you, because regardless of whether you believe yourself to be dishonest or not, you are in fact dishonest, and in a formal debate, your honesty or dishonesty is very much at issue.

Your definition of "God" is so far removed from its roots that it is unrecognizable. Even the omnipresence doctrine of the Catholic church still had God as a separate, distinguishable thing from the rest of creation, and still a person in his own right that has cares and its own thoughts separate from that of the universe. You have squeezed God out of "God" — so what's the point?

If you all are going to refuse to debate me then you should shut down this section of the forum. I'm not going to sit here and beg you to have the balls to have a formal debate.
While I agree that the debate forum has not earned its keep in years, you're hardly in a position to demand anything.

And Im not going to continue to sit here and listen to you come up with lame excuses as to why you aren't going to debate. "The goal of debate is to strengthen the belief in god." ARe you serious??? That's you're excuses??? I am entirely tired of the bullshit. How bout maybe I want to put my world view to the test against a competing world view one-on-one in a formal setting in order to gauge it's strengths and weaknesses?
No, you don't. You've already rejected the ground rules of empiracism in other threads. After that, there's nothing more to be said.

I've never seen such intellectual cowardice in my life....
There is nothing intellectually cowardly about not debating a child who insists that the sky is green. I wish I could say that I have never seen such an overinflated intellectual ego in my life, but sadly, your ilk is very common.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #63 on: April 23, 2014, 11:24:07 AM »
Most of you agree that Materialism is true, which is to say that an external Material Universe exists. To call this "god" would be silly, which is the point you are making.

Have you really established that most of us agree that materialism is true, or have you merely demonstrated that most of the people you're talking to think you haven't disproved it?

Atheists are not anti-Christian. They are anti-stupid.--WitchSabrina

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #64 on: April 23, 2014, 11:28:02 AM »
If that were true that would mean that everything is nothing.

Not to go into the cosmology that is suggestive that it actually is the case that everything is nothing (2+1-3=0), if that were true, it would mean that God isn't everything.
Atheists are not anti-Christian. They are anti-stupid.--WitchSabrina

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #65 on: April 23, 2014, 11:33:14 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.

Does the neurologist you have in mind base their contention on neurology? If so, it would at least be interesting to hear their position.

However, it would seem that under monist idealism, both evidence for and evidence against would be an illusion, with no reason to think it indicates the actual state of affairs.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 11:35:51 AM by Mister Agenda »
Atheists are not anti-Christian. They are anti-stupid.--WitchSabrina

Offline Solitary

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #66 on: April 23, 2014, 11:40:23 AM »
I think the ghost in the closet is Deepak Chopra. Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #67 on: April 23, 2014, 11:44:22 AM »
If that were true that would mean that everything is nothing.

Ever heard of Laurence Krauss' ultimate free lunch ( see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/space/cosmologists-try-to-explain-a-universe-springing-from-nothing.html?_r=0)


Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #68 on: April 23, 2014, 12:14:52 PM »
Hmm. Our totally intellectually honest friend chose to ignore my questions.
Big surprise.
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 #69 on: April 23, 2014, 04:51:56 PM »
I find it more of a concern when people are not willing to debate their ideas. When I find someone who has strong convictions about the nature of reality, so strong that they tell other people that they are wrong, but at the same time refuse to formally debate those ideas, there is something quite disconcerting about that. The unwillingness to put their ideas on the table head to head against competing ideas seems to demonstrate an underlying insecurity.

Hi Casparov!
Let me assure you that between my job and my family, I am a very busy individual. It is out of respect that I typically do not engage in formal debates. Formal debates require a certain level of commitment and investment, two things which if I know I cannot hold myself up to, then I shouldn't. My activity here is sporadic, uncertain, sometimes it is day after day, other times there are long gaps.
Because of the reasons above I am also highly and extremely selective of interlocutors when I do choose to engage in formal debates.
Another reason I usually don't engage in debates is because I don't see a point to them.
So, allow me a moment to be blunt for the sake of clarity, I hope you don't take it the wrong way.
Why should I not only have a formal debate, but why should I have one with you specifically. What sets you apart from the multitude of deists I interact with online?

You are welcome to hold your own opinions (even if they are wrong) and think that refusal to commit to a formal debate is evidence of cowardice, flimsy world  views, etc etc.

I am still not clear. Why is a formal debate so important to you? If you think your world view is so well supported by facts and backed up by evidence, then there should be no reason why you shouldn't be able to, in the absence of a formal debate, simply open up a thread in one of the other sections and see where that goes. If people bother you, then just add them to your ignore list and filter them out.
How bout maybe I want to put my world view to the test against a competing world view one-on-one in a formal setting in order to gauge it's strengths and weaknesses?
You can put your world view to the test at any point, it doesn't have to be against another world view.
You seem to be under the wrong impression that if you disprove another world view, it validates your own.

I love to debate, so much so in fact that sometimes I am accused of doing it for the sake of doing it, to the point that I become argumentative when agreement and consensus can actually be reached. But the only difference between a regular thread and one in the formal debates section is that of commitment; if I fail to follow up and follow through, if I fail to conclude a discussion, that might lead to incorrect and false perceptions of the other person.

Last point. I was Christian. My skepticism is a result of your metaphorical "deep sea diving". I view myself first and foremost a skeptic, and atheist by consequence. In other words, I don't disbelieve that a god could exist, I just don't believe you (where "you" doesn't have to mean specifically you, it means any deist/theist/etc).
« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 05:17:58 PM by Shol'va »

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #70 on: April 23, 2014, 04:55:37 PM »
Of course it is "just a starting point of conversation" hence the debate...  :eyes:

Let me clarify. You did not properly establish specifically what concept you'd like to debate, as you understand it. All you did was provided several textbook definitions of what views you hold and I pointed out that since these definitions are not the end all be all, you did not actually follow through with the request to provide a definition of what it is you'd like to debate.

I can use Google just fine, anyone can. But that still leaves the question unanswered.

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #71 on: April 23, 2014, 07:37:12 PM »
I have decided to re-read the "I believe god exists" thread, however tedious that may sound, and I must say that if the definition of god that we are to debate is indeed this definition, then I can probably summarize what the debate with me would probably sound like.
I stand corrected, it seems that you did in fact provide the closest definition you probably could, as to how you envision god to exist and to be. I don't mean to make fun, but it sounds an awful lot like out of the movie Avatar.

If you were to open the formal debate with that introduction, I would probably say that I don't see the point at all. It sounds like there is no stake we have in accepting this proposition of god or rejecting it. So an atheist, or materialist or any other non-believer would be perfectly justified in living out their life, pardon my bluntness, not giving a fuck. In other words I don't see a necessity to consider a supreme moral code to uphold to, there's no personal stake or consequence that I see in rejecting this proposed deity. If you were to open up the introduction with that proposition of god, I would also say that it is so vague in its description, to the point that I don't actually see what tangible impact it would have on the way one would conduct themselves out there in the world.

You must understand that atheists, humanists, etc. usually mobilize and become activists when the religious try to impose their moral code, holy books, etc etc upon those that are not part of the same faith. You have none of that, so I see you as completely harmless and I see myself perfectly capable of getting along with you just fine. I hear you, I acknowledge your world view, but it has zero effect on me and offers absolutely nothing compelling for me to consider.

It seems that a significant portion of your world view is based on a very fundamental misunderstanding. You say this:
Quote
whoever is a Materialist is making the assertion that Materialism is true. I am simply skeptical of this claim, and am requesting proof. Evidence of any kind will suffice. I challenge you all to prove the positive claim you are making.
That is not a positive claim, my friend. It goes like this
Quote
whoever is a Materialist is making the assertion that Materialism is true ...
... because there has not been presented compelling evidence to the contrary.

It is not a positive claim. It is the negative; the default position.

As to the Bostrom equation, a rudimentary search yields plenty of rebuttals, objections, counter-arguments etc.
I am fairly alarmed at the complete lack of interest to seek out information by yourself. And to demand others debate you ...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulation_argument
« Last Edit: April 23, 2014, 08:12:46 PM by Shol'va »

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #72 on: April 23, 2014, 07:57:06 PM »
If you want a debate on if god exists or not, Ill go ahead and debate you.

Heres my first argument:


Prove it. Show me TESTABLE VERIFIABLE PROOF that god exists.





















Ill wait.
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #73 on: April 23, 2014, 09:27:24 PM »
^ Are you holding your breath? Should I be worried?

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: I Challenge You To a Debate
« Reply #74 on: April 23, 2014, 09:31:38 PM »
I think he knows better than to do that.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu