- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote No strawman, do you believe that Spiders were once without webs yes or no?
Yes. Webs were an adaptation after the emergence (about 400 million years ago) of the first ‘true’ spiders. So what?Quote BTW, Mentioning Dawkins in your argument is appeal to authority.
It’s not, actually. I was just asking you to describe it to his standard. I did not claim that he was an infallible authority. I wish you would spend some time learning how logical fallacies work.Quote The fact is Dawkins does not know any more than you.
I promise you that, as a world-renowned evolutionary biologist he knows a great deal more than me about evolution. That does not mean his word is to be taken as gospel: you are as free as anyone to prove him wrong. Good luck with that!Quote He also does the INSANE act of talking about God and critisizing God as if he believed that God was real and yet as I said if you call something Imaginary and then argue with it you have a mental problem.
Unlike religious believers, many of whom are intellectually stuck in childhood, he is able to use his abstract thinking skills to discuss a hypothetical situation, without having to use the conditional tense in every sentence he writes. Why are you so against him? Can your religion not stand criticism?Quote You don't want to cure that mental problem because either you really have a severe mental defect that allows you to really be angry at imaginary beings or there is something inside you that is telling you it's more than imaginary and you are fighting that voice in you that is telling you that God is real.
I was born atheist, as everyone was. Maybe god-belief is hard-wired in some, but it is no coincidence that most people who worship Imaginary Friends into adulthood worship the one most commonly followed in their country. You certainly are not born believing any particular faith, and you certainly cannot articulate god(s) until you are told about them. If this is a ‘mental problem’ then it is common to all humans, at least in infancy.Quote Why do you feel it necessary to convince yourself that God is imaginary, do you also have to convince yourself so much of other imaginary beings?
No convincing needed. I conclude that all supernatural beings are imaginary. They are all covered by the same theory.Quote Your argument of the entity is validation of your struggle not to believe.
Huh?Stuart
Quote You certainly are not born believing any particular faith, and you certainly cannot articulate god(s) until you are told about them. If this is a ‘mental problem’ then it is common to all humans, at least in infancy. With this statement I have just won the debate, according to yuou NO ONE COULD know about God until they were taught about God, now I have won the debate because how could you account for the knowledge of God existing at all?
You have shown that this knowledge about God came from God otherwise you have to contradict your position.
Heaven,
This may be coming to a quick close, please stand by
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 18 2010,10:43) Quote You certainly are not born believing any particular faith, and you certainly cannot articulate god(s) until you are told about them. If this is a ‘mental problem’ then it is common to all humans, at least in infancy. With this statement I have just won the debate, according to yuou NO ONE COULD know about God until they were taught about God, now I have won the debate because how could you account for the knowledge of God existing at all?
You have shown that this knowledge about God came from God otherwise you have to contradict your position.
Heaven,
This may be coming to a quick close, please stand by
What was the moot for this debate?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 18 2010,12:53) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 18 2010,10:43) Quote You certainly are not born believing any particular faith, and you certainly cannot articulate god(s) until you are told about them. If this is a ‘mental problem’ then it is common to all humans, at least in infancy. With this statement I have just won the debate, according to yuou NO ONE COULD know about God until they were taught about God, now I have won the debate because how could you account for the knowledge of God existing at all?
You have shown that this knowledge about God came from God otherwise you have to contradict your position.
Heaven,
This may be coming to a quick close, please stand by
What was the moot for this debate?Stuart
according to you NO ONE COULD know about God until they were taught about God.I have won the debate because how could you account for the knowledge of God existing at all?
Are you intending to proceed with this thread any further? Since you began it, perhaps you could define the moot for the debate, 23 pages into it, so at least we might know what we are arguing about.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,15:37) Are you intending to proceed with this thread any further? Since you began it, perhaps you could define the moot for the debate, 23 pages into it, so at least we might know what we are arguing about. Stuart
You stated NO ONE COULD know about God until they were taught about God, now I have won the debate because how could you account for the knowledge of God existing at all?You have shown that this knowledge about God came from God otherwise you have to contradict your position.
Sorry, didn't see a moot there anywhere. What, actually is the moot on which you are claiming this basis of a 'victory'?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,20:21) Sorry, didn't see a moot there anywhere. What, actually is the moot on which you are claiming this basis of a 'victory'? Stuart
You have shown that the knowledge of God must be taught and therefore the first time God was taught to a human, the human would have had to have the ability to understand and the knowledge had to be given from a source who already had the Knowledge i.e. God.The moot is, God had to precede the knowledge of God and you proved it.
So if I look on the first page of the debate, I will find that you have challenged me to disprove that God had to precede the knowledge of God?
I don't think it does actually.
I have PM'd heaven asking that the debate be declared dead because I forgot to insist that as challenger you define what it is we were debating, and essentially we haven't being doing anything different to what happens in other threads. It just says 'for atheism / for god' at the start of this one, which is not really a moot for a debate. So perhaps you could start a new thread and challenge me to this moot.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,13:01) So if I look on the first page of the debate, I will find that you have challenged me to disprove that God had to precede the knowledge of God? I don't think it does actually.
I have PM'd heaven asking that the debate be declared dead because I forgot to insist that as challenger you define what it is we were debating, and essentially we haven't being doing anything different to what happens in other threads. It just says 'for atheism / for god' at the start of this one, which is not really a moot for a debate. So perhaps you could start a new thread and challenge me to this moot.
Stuart
You have shown that the evidence is for God and against atheism by admitting that the knowledge of God is not inborn and must be taught therefore know one could ever teach about God unless they were taught from the source of that knowledge which could only be GodThis is what I wrote, and is what you appear infatuated by:
You certainly are not born believing any particular faith, and you certainly cannot articulate god(s) until you are told about them. If this is a ‘mental problem’ then it is common to all humans, at least in infancy.
Where in there is the logical requirement that there has to be any such thing as gods? I had no knowledge of Spiderman before being told about him.
I think this thread has little point, and certainly does not belong in the debates section.
We should close it and start a moot that can reasonably be debated, say the statement you proposed.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,16:44) This is what I wrote, and is what you appear infatuated by: You certainly are not born believing any particular faith, and you certainly cannot articulate god(s) until you are told about them. If this is a ‘mental problem’ then it is common to all humans, at least in infancy.
Where in there is the logical requirement that there has to be any such thing as gods? I had no knowledge of Spiderman before being told about him.
I think this thread has little point, and certainly does not belong in the debates section.
We should close it and start a moot that can reasonably be debated, say the statement you proposed.
Stuart
Quote I had no knowledge of Spiderman before being told about him. The debate has been won by me and you have further backed it up again. Who told you about spiderman?
Now after you answer that who told the first person about spiderman? The Creator of Spiderman
The creator told the first Human/Humans about Himself and they were therefore able to teach this knowledge to their children.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2010,07:11) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,16:44) This is what I wrote, and is what you appear infatuated by: You certainly are not born believing any particular faith, and you certainly cannot articulate god(s) until you are told about them. If this is a ‘mental problem’ then it is common to all humans, at least in infancy.
Where in there is the logical requirement that there has to be any such thing as gods? I had no knowledge of Spiderman before being told about him.
I think this thread has little point, and certainly does not belong in the debates section.
We should close it and start a moot that can reasonably be debated, say the statement you proposed.
Stuart
Quote I had no knowledge of Spiderman before being told about him. The debate has been won by me and you have further backed it up again. Who told you about spiderman?
Now after you answer that who told the first person about spiderman? The Creator of Spiderman
The creator told the first Human/Humans about Himself and they were therefore able to teach this knowledge to their children.
There never was a debate, BD. You cannot state what moot you wrote in your first post, so it has all be a general discussion. I might add that if we counted up all your uses of logical fallacies an the abjectly ignorant position from which you attempted to discredit natural history, I think you would have been counted out of any “debate' many pages ago.Anyway, I just don't care, and I think that if you challenged me to a real debate, I probably would probably ignore it. You actually don't know what 'debate' means, if this thread has been anything to go on. Maybe when you have learned something about it.
I am pleased to see you place Spiderman in the same category as your god, and I think that is appropriate.
Tell me who the first humans were, and your biological justification for that. Otherwise there is no question that you have lost this 'mini debate', the one you have been belatedly carrying on in the last page or two, one which I never agreed to in any case.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2010,08:15) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2010,07:11) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,16:44) This is what I wrote, and is what you appear infatuated by: You certainly are not born believing any particular faith, and you certainly cannot articulate god(s) until you are told about them. If this is a ‘mental problem’ then it is common to all humans, at least in infancy.
Where in there is the logical requirement that there has to be any such thing as gods? I had no knowledge of Spiderman before being told about him.
I think this thread has little point, and certainly does not belong in the debates section.
We should close it and start a moot that can reasonably be debated, say the statement you proposed.
Stuart
Quote I had no knowledge of Spiderman before being told about him. The debate has been won by me and you have further backed it up again. Who told you about spiderman?
Now after you answer that who told the first person about spiderman? The Creator of Spiderman
The creator told the first Human/Humans about Himself and they were therefore able to teach this knowledge to their children.
There never was a debate, BD. You cannot state what moot you wrote in your first post, so it has all be a general discussion. I might add that if we counted up all your uses of logical fallacies an the abjectly ignorant position from which you attempted to discredit natural history, I think you would have been counted out of any “debate' many pages ago.Anyway, I just don't care, and I think that if you challenged me to a real debate, I probably would probably ignore it. You actually don't know what 'debate' means, if this thread has been anything to go on. Maybe when you have learned something about it.
I am pleased to see you place Spiderman in the same category as your god, and I think that is appropriate.
Tell me who the first humans were, and your biological justification for that. Otherwise there is no question that you have lost this 'mini debate', the one you have been belatedly carrying on in the last page or two, one which I never agreed to in any case.
Stuart
First you say that there is no debate and then you finish the post calling it a “mini debate” Is a mini debate a debate nonetheless?Quote there is no question that you have lost this 'mini debate', the one you have been belatedly carrying on in the last page or two, one which I never agreed to in any case. Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2010,17:45) Quote there is no question that you have lost this 'mini debate', the one you have been belatedly carrying on in the last page or two, one which I never agreed to in any case. Stuart
Is a mini debate a debate nonetheless?Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2010,18:28) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2010,17:45) Quote there is no question that you have lost this 'mini debate', the one you have been belatedly carrying on in the last page or two, one which I never agreed to in any case. Stuart
Is a mini debate a debate nonetheless?
Not in this context, obviously.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 28 2010,00:39) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 27 2010,18:28) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 27 2010,17:45) Quote there is no question that you have lost this 'mini debate', the one you have been belatedly carrying on in the last page or two, one which I never agreed to in any case. Stuart
Is a mini debate a debate nonetheless?
Not in this context, obviously.Stuart
Then why did you say?Quote you have lost this 'mini debate' You see how confused you are? You are right you don't believe in Absolute Truth!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
