frame

Best Fallacy Content

  • Change to Pledge of Allegiance

    @Nope

    In other words, this dude wants his way regardless of what the law is.  Did I not pagans are mentally ill?
    Vaulk
  • Change to Pledge of Allegiance

    @CYDdharta

    No, for we do not wish to encourage the mental illness of the pagan.
    VaulkCYDdhartaDrCereal
  • Change to Pledge of Allegiance

    @DrCereal

    Why does accepting human rights immediatly mean the acceptance of the assertion that they were give to us by god? That's a non sequitur.
    II. If our Human Rights are established as valid in the Declaration of Independence and you acknowledge that, then you must also acknowledge that they are bestowed upon us by our Creator, subsequently acknowledging God.

    Human Rights are established by the constitution not the Declaration of Independence. Last time I checked, there are no references to god in the constitution. You're argument is very unstable.
    Our Human Rights are all based upon the principles within the Declaration of Independence as cited below.  The Declaration of Independence set forth the ideas and principles behind a just and fair government.  The Constitution outlines how that Government will function.
    https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Office of Citizenship/Citizenship Resource Center Site/Publications/PDFs/M-654.pdf

           “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” — Alexander Hamilton, 1775
           “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.” — George Washington, 1796
           “The Declaration of Independence...[is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1819

    Additionally, the Declaration of Independence was created prior to any attempt at a Constitution and was described by the President of the Continental Congress - John Hancock as “the foundation of a future government.”

    Furthermore, see below.

    Cotting v. Godard, in 1901, the Supreme Court makes the case that the Constitution is but the “body and the letter” of the “thought and spirit” of the Declaration’s founding principles:

    The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.
    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/republic-found-the-relationship-between-the-declaration-and-constitution

    I maintain that accepting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness will subsequently acknowledge the "Creator", the "Supreme Judge of the World" and "Divine Providence".  Now normally there could be a valid argument that the claim behind the Founding Fathers' assertion that these Rights are God given could be false.  One might normally be able to argue that they just made that part up, but with zero evidence to support that and the #1 superpower on the entire Earth built upon that former ideology...there's not much of an argument there.  Like it or not, if you acknowledge those principles then you by default acknowledge where they come from.  

    Keep in mind you can refuse to believe that X exists while condoning it all-the-while...it just doesn't appear to be very logical.  "I don't believe in God or a higher power but I'll gladly live in a Country with a government built solidly upon the premise and principles that he does exist and also guarantees us Human Rights".
    DrCereal
  • Atheist Epistemology

    Can any atheist provide me their rational basis for knowing truth from fiction?

    @ViceRegent hello my friend.

    To be rational about answering your question, first we have to answer; how do we understand the word 'atheist'?

    Google Dictionary -
    atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"
    synonym: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic;
    nihilist

    theism. :belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

    (Note: Many god/gods have been claimed as the "creative source" of the human race, one god I can think of that could fit this description is Zeus, then there are the Roman Catholic created non-Biblical "Christian gods" like the 'three-in-one Trinity-gods' , .. father-god, sun-god and spirit-god.)

    First Known use: 1678

    Wikipedia on the other hand, says this about the word 'theism':
    Etymology. The term theism derives from the Greek theos meaning "god". The term theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).

    Which means that the words theist/atheist didn't exist in Biblical times, especially not in the O.T. times, and seeing that theos is a "Greek word for god", I find no reason to believe the Greeks were talking about Bible-God, who is not a 'being', but the Ground of Being', .. the; Infinite and Eternal Spirit/Mind Creator "I Am", the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob, .. the God of the Bible.

    So theism/atheism has to do something with believing, or not believing in the existence of Greek god or gods, which were all 'fiction', .. or made up gods and creators and followed 'religiously' by millions of people, from all walks of life. So right off the bat, by rational basis that neither theists, or 'atheist' could ever know "truth from fiction".  Just by 'claiming' to be theist/atheist proves this.

    VaulkDrCereal
  • Try and Make Me Believe Atheists Have No Morals

    @Ampersand

    Your example of the milgram experiment in this regard is somewhat accurate of a representation of measuring Human behavior but is far from any representation of the application of the Scientific Method in Human thoughts.  Behavior is not necessarily a byproduct of thought.  It's a well established Psychological principle that the Brain is not 100% in control of what you do.  Your actions are not all derivatives of your Brain.  There are things that we do on a regular basis that require no thought process what-so-ever from the Brain.  If your Brain were required to think for every action that you take then I doubt seriously that we would have nearly as many stereotypes as we have today.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/obesely-speaking/201403/your-mind-does-not-care-what-your-brain-thinks

    You are absolutely correct in your assertion that Human beings are too complex in order to replicate any experiment on Human thoughts.  This is yet another example of why I contend that Human thoughts are not of the natural world. 

    Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.  Now you've contended that thoughts can be indirectly observed by providing examples of instead observing Human behavior.  I agree that Human behavior is guided by thought to a degree however, the problem with this conclusion comes when attempting to apply the standards of experimentation.  While Scientists to this day continue to attempt to experiment with Human thoughts, the end result is the same.  Humans are too complex to simply observe actions and suggest that you're really just observing thoughts.  Likewise, Human thoughts are also too complex of a subject to reproduce an experiment on them.  To this day, no one even knows where memories are stored and the closest thing we can get to explaining the inner-workings of the mind is to compare it erroneously to a Computer. 
    https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
    http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

    The simple fact is that we know virtually nothing about the Human mind and we know even less about what goes on at the metaphysical level.  We certainly haven't ever observed a thought, we don't even know if memories are stored in the Brain at all.  I'm pretty comfy with acknowledging that Science doesn't have the answers and likely never will.  I mean we used to liken the Human mind and body to hydraulic lines, then cogs and wheels (A machine essentially) and today we think it's more like a Computer...which is utterly ridiculous.  I can see how this would be problematic from a Naturalistic worldview however, if I were an Atheist at certain times during History I would believe:

    1. There is such a thing as the Aether.
    2. Spontaneous generation of complex life occurs regularly.
    3. Transmutation of Species happens all the time.
    4. Maternal impression is responsible for birth defects
    5. That Telegony is a real concern.

    It's no stretch of the imagination that holding fast to a Naturalistic worldview could be leading you down the wrong path (It's not like it hasn't in the past) but I respect that you don't subscribe to the dude in the sky.  As far as Atheists having Morals...of course they do.  They just don't want to admit that they can't account for them.  I can account for a majority of my Morality by citing popular western Moral code.  Human beings are entitled to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" where I come from, what's less popular is the fact that those Human Rights are well documented as being bestowed by a higher power.  Our forefathers established very clearly and solidly that our fundamental Human rights are bestowed by our creator (A fancy tactic of ensuring that nothing as fallible as a Human could remove them), and then went on to acknowledge the "Supreme Judge of the World".  I'm with the forefathers on this one.
    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
    DrCereal
  • Try and Make Me Believe Atheists Have No Morals

    @NonCredenti

    None of what this guy says should he taken seriously as he has admitted he knows nothing.
    DrCereal
  • Dear Evolutionists

    @Hank

    Thats the chance of DNA forming by chance. I believe DNA was created by design not chance so yet again the formation of DNA by chance is impossible yet here we are so the creation of DNA is not due to ch
    Nope
  • Atheist Epistemology

    And he runs away.  Typical pagan.
    DrCereal
  • Thomas Aquinas's Cosmological Argument: Is it Accurate?

    @Erfisflat

    Christians gave us science.  Atheists are taking us back to mysticism and voodoo.
    HankSilverishGoldNovaDrCereal
  • Atheist Epistemology

    And naturally he ran away.
    DrCereal

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch