Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago#12,417
Point out that religion, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. An example of this includes the Christian crusades, and the present day suicide bombings of Muslims. Are [insert faith here] really that different?
4Target the religious texts. In the case of the bible, often entire verses, stories, and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. Exploit the plot holes, inconsistencies and illogical and impossible things.
5Relate to your debating opponent. Ask them for a reason as to why they believe so strongly in their faith besides being raised in the dogma's environment. Be aware of the Hundreds of Proofs of God's existence[1] they may try to use.
6Demonstrate that people believe in whatever they're told to believe. Ask your debating opponent if he believes in a specific belief of another religion (for example, if he's Jewish you can ask him if he believes Jesus was the son of god). Assuming he would answer negatively, then ask him whether he thinks he would believe that if he were born in a Christian country to Christian parents...
7Religion has been often used to explain the unexplainable. The Greeks used Poseidon to explain how earthquakes happened (which we now know is due to the movement of tectonic plates). What happens when we can prove, and you can't deny, the Big Bang theory and Evolution, which both have such large amounts of logic behind them that it's hard to deny that they are true. (This is called "The God of the gaps" factor)
8What happens after death? Many Christians try to use this argument to trick you into thinking you have to go to heaven. However, try relating this to something that has already happened. What happened before you were born? Nothing in the bible says anything about this.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#223,053
Point out that state, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. An example of this includes the every war ever, and the present day US occupation of the Middle East. Are [insert state here] really that different?
4Target the statist histories. In the case of the USA, often entire battle, bombings, and attacks were falsified for the sake of starting a war. Exploit the plot holes, inconsistencies and illogical and impossible things.
5Relate to your debating opponent. Ask them for a reason as to why they believe so strongly in their state besides being raised in a statist environment. Be aware of the Hundreds of Excuses for the State's existence[1] they may try to use.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#223,059
@previous (G)
Sup mountainman. Do you know any other words besides "statist?"
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#223,060
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,078
@OP
That's just bad reasoning. It's not a valid argument. That is to say, even if I were to grant that every premise was true, it would not logically follow that God (which you haven't even defined) does not exist.
Sorry but I have to feed the trolls. :(
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,081
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But logically there is no God. Logically there is no need for one. You start from there, you don't work your way back to it by attempting to "defeat" arguments for god. You must first work from the assumption that anything and everything they say is wrong, and then go from there.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,085
@previous (J) > But logically there is no God. You start from there, you don't work your way back to it by attempting to "defeat" arguments for god.
If you're arguing with a religious person, like the @OP implies, then yes you do start from there. If they say "I believe that God exists", and you want to figure out where they went wrong in their argument, you don't counter with "Yeah, but God doesn't exist." That's stating a contradictory opinion, not carrying out an actual serious argument.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,089
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But you're wrong. I don't need to figure out where their argument went wrong, it's just invalid.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,092
@previous (J)
In order for anyone to believe you when you declare an argument invalid, you must be able to provide a reason why. Having what you consider an illogical conclusion is not really a sufficient reason. If something has an absurd conclusion, then that's the beginning of your task, which is to find out where they went wrong. Looking at the conclusion and saying "Nope" just won't cut it.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,095
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But if someone were to claim something like, I dunno, there's a man in the clouds who grants us wishes and punishes us for our misdeeds... I can kind of just dismiss that out of hand. Why would I even want to argue with such absurd claims. That makes no logical sense. You can't reason with the unreasonable.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,098
It god was real he would not have allowed for the creation of atheists. I am an atheist.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,099
@223,095 (J)
But there's nothing logically incoherent (at least on its surface) about that statement. If I were to say that I have a stick that is longer than itself, you could justifiably dismiss it out of hand as being logically inconsistent. If, however, there is something which on its surface is not self-contradictory, there is no good philosophical reason to immediately declare that it is false.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,109
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Well, I'm sure that's the logic used by 5 year olds when thinking about the validity of Santa Claus. If religion wasn't spread from adults to children with every generation then the concepts and beliefs would just die. Humans perpetuate the myth of god, if the myth were to disappear then nothing would be left to debate about (kinda like Santa Claus.)
It's not like god is coming down saying, "Hey guys, don't forget I still here." People do that.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,114
@previous (J)
Right, but even if that were true, that wouldn't mean that God does not exist. All it would mean is that "knowledge claims" about God spread via human interaction. No one disagrees with that, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,116
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
That your arguments are invalid because they are wrong.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,120
@previous (J)
...But you haven't demonstrated that.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,127
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I don't need to, as I said, demonstrate anything. If anything the people making wild religious claims need to demonstrate that Santa Cl --I mean god is real. I start from the position that ridiculous and ludicrous arguments are ridiculous and ludicrous. You can defend belief in god all you want, your "logic" has no meaning.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,129
@previous (J)
I agree that religious people have very large claims to support, but it's just intellectually lazy to say "You have a complicated argument to explain how the world is? Nah, come back with a simpler one, preferably one that I already agree with."
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,133
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Their argument is not complicated though, their argument is really, really simplistic: "The universe is to complicated to exist without a designer, so a magical deity with infinite powers who LOVES us and made everything FOR us is the only explanation."
Magic is the easy fucking answer, bud.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#223,141
@previous (J)
That would be a bad argument. Unfortunately, only the dumbest religious people (i.e. the entire southern U.S.) holds that belief. There are a bunch of other arguments which are more philosophically rigorous than that though.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,145
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,146
@previous (J)
How is having a philosophically rigorous argument for the existence of God a problem?
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,147
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU) > Philosophically rigorous is just a fancy term for, "Hey guys, you know what I think? Prove me wrong."
Objective truth is a red herring. How about some empirical evidence.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,148
@previous (J) > Philosophically rigorous is just a fancy term for, "Hey guys, you know what I think? Prove me wrong."
Isn't that the definition of any argument? "I believe X is true, and here are my reasons for thinking that X is true. Can you prove me wrong?"
Also, is it objectively true that objective truth is a red herring? Saying anything against objective truth is a self-contradictory statement. In essence, you are saying "It is objectively true that objective truth is useless/meaningless/whatever." I'd agree that absolute certainty is a red herring, but it's pretty clear to me that objective truth (though we may argue about what exactly it is) is both existent and worth pursuing.
Empirical evidence of what?
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,149
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
evidence for the existence of god. I have lots of evidence he doesn't exist. Science has looked everywhere and has found no trace. He's not actually in the clouds, and he's probably not out in space. Basically everywhere we look we can't find him :/ He is one elusive fuck. Maybe religion can point us towards him? Well, that's what they claim --but they claim it's in the afterlife.
I dunno... All I'm saying, for real, and not trolling, is that I can recognize a scam when I see one. Religion is an invention of people, as are all things that are "concepts" in nature. God as a concept is, in my blasphemous opinion, anthropomorphized nature imbued with all of the traits of man but to such an exaggerated extent that it's narcissistic to insist that we are even capable of understanding God, let alone act as a fucking voice for HIS wishes. Fuck that shit. Fuck our cultural concept of God, fuck all of them. They are fucking wrong, all of them, and I refuse to acknowledge the validity of a dogmatic intolerant TYRANT. FUCK HIM.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,151
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,152
@previous (L)
What more do I need then blasphemous atheism?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,153
@223,149 (J)
I agree there is probably no God, and if there is one, He/She/It is not like the 3 "great" monotheisms claim that it is like.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,154
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
An insect would have an easier time understanding the mind of a man, then man would have understanding the mind of God.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,155
@previous (J)
way to say a whole lot of nothing, troll
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,156
@previous (L)
Go talk more about shit you just learned in class mountainman
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,157
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#223,659
God exists, but all religions are false.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#223,688
> tripped by old copypasta full of holes
minichan i am dissapoint
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous R joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#223,715
God exists, we invented him silly. See you can use the word God and everyone knows what you mean. That's only possible if he exists, at the very least, as a mental construct.
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#223,717
People a free to believe whatever they want, I don't know why people force the argument. It only baits vile contempt.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#223,746
@223,630 (swamplights !!V3J448+/B)
To convince people the state is evil. That the state is evil.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#223,749
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#223,772
@223,717 (bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc)
Yea, but you really should combat ignorance when you encounter it.
Believing in fairy tales is beyond silly. When people are delusional we usually don't let them run for president. Look at the republican field now though.
Ignorance is dangerous.
bookshelf !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#223,779
@previous (sluggy)
I don't care, I'm going to go play starcraft 2 for a while
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#223,783