frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Religion or Atheism Which is better?

135



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Coveny ;
    "a "believe" system by nature isn't empirircally verifiable... that's why it's a belief system. "

    Right, which is why you have a belief system. Big bangism and evolution are not empirically verifiable, if they were,  then we can call them facts. You know this
    "Science isn't "infallible","
    yet you consider your belief system fact, because "Science has checks and peer review that do the verification for me" lol! In other words, your belief system that is based purely on pseudoscience is dependable because other pseudoscientist agree.

    My belief system has empirically verifiable evidence. I know the earth is flat, because I have verified this myself. Literally anyone can, no opinion needed. 

    "I have however seen that the earth is round"

    Please share this anecdotal evidence. I'll share verifiable evidence against it. So far all I've seen is a few nuh-uhs and but, but muh science book! 

    "This isn't a debate about the moon, or a flat earth though is it?"

    That is the basis of your belief system. If the earth is flat and geocentric, that means someone put it here. Then, your pseudoscientific belief system is disproved. Still waiting. Prove that ball earth. 
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat the big bang and evolution are empirically verifiable, you have no clue what you are talking about.

    Fact is an interesting term, and although I probably shouldn't open up a semantics debate with you I'm going to do it anyway. The only fact is that I exist, everything else is just higher levels of likelihood. At some point the likelihood of something becomes so high we consider it a fact. The evolution is a fact on that scale, while the big bang isn't. There are a few other plausible theories, as well as "holes" in the big bang theory, but it's the most likely of what we currently know.

    Now you are calling science pseudoscience. Let's how how pseudoscience is defined:
    Dictionary - any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance,considered as having no scientific basis.
    Webster - a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
    Oxford - A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
    Free Dictionary - A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.

    So it is logically impossible for science to be pseudoscience, and again you are using words you don't know the meaning of.

    This is a debate about if atheism is better than theism, not a debate to convert atheists to theism. You want to create a "The earth is flat" debate and tag me in it I'll dance with ya, but that's not what this debate is about. 
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Evidence I don’t have a god, so I can’t tell you how my god is different from other gods. I’m not playing word games, or speaking around anything, you are confusing me… with yourself. 

    My meaning of theism and atheism have them as opposites one believes in god one does not. There is no contradiction in my definitions. Again you are confusing me – with yourself.

    I have stated my side, you have done nothing to prove me wrong. You talk in circle about gods who aren’t gods. How everything was created, but not everything was created. And many other logical impossibilities. You have repeatedly used words wrong. 

    More mystic crap I’m going to ignore.

    More on the moon landing. Nazi scientist… that’s rich, because it makes sense that everyone would agree to a HUGE hoax created by a Nazi.

    I see god outside of religion, you are the one who seems to completely ignore that possibility. I don’t just “see” outside of religion I LIVE outside of religion. I live outside of gods. Sadly, you can’t conceive that. You can’t imagine a world where there isn’t a creator, but you keep calling me indoctrinate as you quote the yehweh’s bible and make fun of people who worship yehweh in ways that are different than you. And you again refuse to define yehweh without using religion. (your favorite word play)

    So we are back to you believing in god, calling yourself an atheist, while you call atheist theist, and completely misuse words. Look I’ll say this again, define god in such a way that it’s logically possible for there to be god and not be god. Because thus far the closest you’ve gotten to is it’s not god if it has a religion, but then you use the same word to define gods that have religions associated with them. This is a logical impossibility even if you get to use your blurry word of relgion.

    NASA is a god? I mean NASA is pretty good, and they have sacrificed a few human, but really that’s what you are going with? Again NASA is run by humans, so by your definite all I need do is work at NASA to become a GOD!!!!! ROFL, your logic is SO bad… 

    Yes that’s proof of evolution, it’s literally happening before your eyes and you deny it. How well you have been programed, your cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing the truth and facts. 

    How is it that you MUST have a creator for dirt, but there is no need for a creator of the most power, most complex, and most intelligent entity? Really man… dirt wins, look outside your box.

    You didn’t read the bible very, well did you? Angels do not have free will, and satan is on yahweh’s orders. Free will is a give given only to humans. Yahweh created evil and darkness. I’m taught a lot of theists about their religions in this thread, have a seat, you can be next. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @coveny  "A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method."

    Is the definition I look at. But we can disect that even more. Science has swayed from the scientific method, which can be defined as:
    a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    That is Natural science, which is the core of science. Something that is scalable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable, practical and demonstrable. 

    Formal sciences, like string theory, mathematics, logic, big bangism, etc. Are different because they require no empirical data, experimentation, or verification (pseudoscience). The numbers will add up regardless how many false axioms are used. Natural science precedes formal science for obvious reasons.

    I have shown, and I'm repeating myself because you keep dodging, with natural science, that the earth is flat. This inheritantly disproves evolution and big bangism, and any atheistic pseudoscience, which depends on heliocentrism, the false, assumed axiom th a props up your whole belief system. This makes us special. 

    "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla


    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat you define scientific method as:
    "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

    Let's see how that lines up:
    Dictionary - a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested
    Webster - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
    Oxford - A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
    Free Dictionary - The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to test the hypothesis, and development of a conclusion that confirms, rejects, or modifies the hypothesis.

    Ok so you are going with Oxford's definition, and rather than focusing on how the definition is the same as others, you are focusing on the "natural science" part, and contrasting it to what you are calling "formal science". Let's have a look at nature science then

    Dictionary - a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature, as biology or physics, as distinguished from the abstract or theoretical sciences, as mathematics or philosophy.
    Webster - any of the sciences (such as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena
    Oxford - A branch of science which deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology.
    Free Dictionary - A science, such as biology, chemistry, or physics, that deals with the objects, phenomena, or laws of nature and the physical world.

    So "natural science" just means science that deals with the physical world, and "formal sciences" deal with logic, mathematics, statistic. I'm more use to the older terms of hard and soft science, but ok. I'll even give you that natural science is the "core" of science.

    So basically you are going back to the axiom that the soft sciences are not "real" science, I haven't had that debate in many years, but yes math is a science. You can observe it, measure it, and experiment with it. Also you can not measure hard sciences without the soft science of math, and computers. 

    So I guess I'm going to talk about hard science that proves the earth is round.
    The physics of time zones and it being daytime and nighttime somewhere in the world all the time. 
    The physics of coriolis effect is different in the northern and southern hemispheres. 
    The sun gets lower in the sky as you travel away from the equator
    The stars change as you move around the globe, physically that's not how a flat surface works
    The horizon covers the bottom of buildings first moving up, indicating the earth is in the way

    While I have a lot of respect for Tesla, he wasn't right about everything, and made some wild claims. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    "The physics of time zones and it being daytime and nighttime somewhere in the world all the time. "

    Globe earth proponents love the hundreds year old theoretical instances of so called proof. They cling to them like a story in the Bible. Errortosthanes was, quite frankly, an . He also thought the earth was a ball (circumnavigation) because he'd seen elephants in the east (Indian) and again in the west (African). His experiment relies solely on a false premise. The distance to the sun. A close small sun will produce the same exact results over a flat surface. It's the very same proof as time zones.


    We can prove that the sun is close and small by simply looking up on any cloudy day.



    So again, the false premise is " the sun is so far away that it's rays are parallel when they reach the Earth" and this is only possible on a globe earth " If you think those rays are parallel, then you probably failed geometry.


    "The physics of coriolis effect is different in the northern and southern hemispheres. "

    Please ellaborate, there are different arguments against each example. Either way it's a red herring, this is not measuring the earth. 

    "The sun gets lower in the sky as you travel away from the equator"

    This is the law of perspective. As the tracks appear to converge, the telephone poles get lower too. Also a red herring, this is not measuring the earth.

    "The stars change as you move around the globe, physically that's not how a flat surface works"

    Same thing, the stars are close. Identical results can be found with my model. Definitely not measuring the earth. 

    "The horizon covers the bottom of buildings first moving up, indicating the earth is in the way" 

    Measuring the earth, but nothing specific here, no examples or measurements. 

    Ok, you at least tried. I'll give you that. Here's a copy paste from my debate. 

    With the curvature calculator found here:
    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial

     you can see that an observer at 1000 feet looking at an item 163 miles away would find that object 10,631 feet below the horizon. This would place the peak of Canigou well over 1000 feet below the horizon however not only it, but other peaks near it are clearly seen. In the videos below you will see several, sometimes 6 or 7 noticeable and very clear distinct mountain peaks. Even peaks 4000 feet high can be seen and this peak should be over a mile below the horizon.



    http://canigou.allauch.free.fr/index.html
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    "math is a science. You can observe it, measure it, and experiment with it."

    Math is a tool. You can't empirically observe it or measure it. You can use it to do these things, but as I explained, if there is empirical evidence against a theory supported entirely by mathematics, or against one of it's core axioms, this makes it a theory based on at least one arguably false assumption. You want to base your belief system on conjecture and assumptions? Sure, it all looks very nice on the drawing board, but how much of it is reality?



    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    I see I'm a bit late to this party, and rather than trying to respond to the wall of positions, I'll just lay out my own.

    "Better" is a subjective term. What does it mean to be "better"? If you're looking for hope that something after this life exists, sure religion is "better". If you can't figure out how to give your own life meaning and need someone else to do it for you (what I would call meaningless meaning), sure religion is better. However, if you're looking to find out what's true and care about believing more true things than those that are not true, skepticism is the way to go. Atheism is simply a position. It's a lack of belief because there isn't sufficient evidence to support the existence of a god - not something that can be better or worse. Are you convinced there is a god? Religion is better for you. Are you not convinced there is a god? I can't really say atheism is "better" for you, because if you're not convinced a god exists, you are an atheist. Whether you're a theist or atheist is not a choice. You can't choose what you believe. You can only be convinced or not convinced of a position. If you are convinced there is a god, you can than take the next step of choosing your religion (not much of a "choice" either since you'll naturally go with the one that matches the god you're convinced of).

    All that said, the premise is flawed. A better question would be, "Religion or Secular Humanism, which is better?" Religion has created a civilization in which people aren't capable of finding purpose or meaning for their own lives. It has created the need for people to find hope in things that can't be verified. It has created a people who believe they can't be moral creatures unless someone tells them certain things are wrong.

    Secular humanism however, adopts the idea of being moral for the good of humanity. What helps humanity flourish? Not sure if something would be good for your fellow man? Is it something you think would be good for you? We care about what's moral because it's right, not because someone told us it is. It's for the same reason when we teach our children what's good and bad, it's even more important to teach them why it's good or bad. Secular humanism decides what's moral based on reality, not the whims of a deity. 

    If I might keep my amended premise, "Religion or Secular Humanism, which is better?" - I must answer secular humanism all the way.
    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat
    1) Time zones. I talk about time zones and you respond with shadows. If there was a “small close sun" then a flat surfaces would not have time zones, and one area wouldn’t be in darkness while another area is in sun. To use your figures 2a has sun at all parts, but 2b does not have sun on the back side.

    2) Coriolis effect. If the earth is flat why is there a difference between the northern and southern hemispheres? 

    3) Sun’s height. To go back to your figure in 2a the sun’s height wouldn’t ever be “low” on the horizon, while in 2b it would. This isn’t justified by the law of perspective.

    4) Stars move. No your model does not account for stars flipping, or not being able to see them from different locations on a flat planet. Measures the earth

    5) Horizon covers bottom first. If the earth is flat the bottom of objects in the distance should just fad away, they shouldn’t disappear bottom first. This only works if the earth is round.

    You refuted NONE of my points.

    Your link is dead, but it doesn’t matter, you set the “rules” to prove the earth is flat without the use of math because you see math as a soft science… oh wait you don’t see math as a science at all. Pfft. You can “observe” addition, subtraction, division, etc and you can measure them as well. Math IS a science. If math is a “false assumption” then how can it be a “tool”? You contradict yourself… so much. 




    I still don’t have a “belief system” regardless of how many times you say it. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Coveny

    1. Despite what you think, light does not travel infinitely far. A small close sun lights locally. 



    At night, the sun is just a few thousand miles away hidden by that much atmosphere . 

    2. Coriolis effect. I know what it is, please give a practical example. There are different explanations for each. For example the drain example is false altogether. 


    3.Sun’s height
    Yes, the law of perspective causes the sun to appear lower in the sky. Atmospheric refraction causes sunsets. The sun is magnified and lowered. Talk about intelligent design. 



    4. Stars are not trillions of miles away. They along with everything else in the world follows the law of perspective. They just go far enough away that they disappear. The laws of perspective are commonly known aspect of human perception. As far as stars "flipping", please elaborate on that. Are you claiming that north and south change positions? Or that, because the south faces north to see a constellation that a northerner would face south to see, that instead of those observers obviously facing each other on a flat plane, seeing a constellation between them from opposite angles, that this positively implies that one or the other is hanging from his toes? Come now. Maybe you do have an ape-brain ancestor or two.

    5. Horizon covers bottom first.

    Again, you give no examples. You do realize that I'm in no way claiming that the Earth is perfectly mathematically flat right? I do believe in hills and trees. There is also a thing called refraction.

    "Your link is dead" it's fixed now. It is an automatic calculator that tells you how much curvature there should be over a given distance from any given altitude. I did not make a rule disallowing math. I spoke against math as a science.

    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics

    You're making up an excuse so that can dismiss my evidence. There it stands, undisputed, empirical evidence that water is flat, as common sense tells us all, over 150 miles, while you point at the sky.
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat @Coveny
    You can't dictate and predict every atheist's belief system.

    atheism is a religion debate reference
    You can't just place Darwin as the god of atheism for evolution and all.

    Somewhere yes an atheist has a belief system that he may not even be aware of! But with religion they have a highly recognised belief system they commit to and devote to. Atheism is a wild ride for some people. They just realise one thing and they're atheist not giving it further thought unless someone challenges them they begin to come back to religion again. I mean given enough logic math is a religion.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    @Imbster said: @Erfisflat @Coveny You can't dictate and predict every atheist's belief system.

    Im generalizing atheists based on majority consensus. 

    atheism is a religion debate reference

    ?

    "You can't just place Darwin as the god of atheism for evolution and all."

    Im not, the atheist's God is gravity. It created us all, in the magical creating explosion, again, I'm generalizing the atheist's belief system. 


    " somewhere  yes an atheist has a belief system that he may not even be aware of! "

    But with religion they have a highly recognised belief system they commit to and devote to.

    I agree totally. Gravity is a lie, how do you feel about that? I'm not religious, I don't feel that theism=religion. I know the earth is flat and based on that information, coupled with the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence that supports the firmament, I can assume, at the very least, the creation story, over theoretical physicists, a joke to the scientific method.

    " Atheism is a wild ride for some people. They just realise one thing and they're atheist not giving it further thought unless someone challenges them they begin to come back to religion again."

    I don't even read the Bible. Even if it contains the more credible origin story, it is still a book. It being such a widely pushed book, another sign of indoctrination, I can't fully accept it as infallible. @evidence has an interesting thought process that I'm still taking in. Either way, I know we are special. 

    " I mean given enough logic math is a religion. "

    Or a belief system created from mathematics. 
    Sylynn
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ImbsterImbster 149 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat

    I seem interested with evidence's new found thoughts.
    Anyway major emphasis on the atheism is a wild ride for some, I'm simply pointing out some people become atheists because they realize or read one thing and when they are seemingly pulverised by just that one thing that triggers them to be atheist they revert. I mean I don't blame they if they take the first step but maybe take more steps. Upon taking up atheism it is highly suggested to look over the many topics...
    though I as an atheist find nothing interesting yet with Charles Darwin having not finished yet my formal education.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Imbster said:
    @Erfisflat

    I seem interested with evidence's new found thoughts.
    Anyway major emphasis on the atheism is a wild ride for some, I'm simply pointing out some people become atheists because they realize or read one thing and when they are seemingly pulverised by just that one thing that triggers them to be atheist they revert. I mean I don't blame they if they take the first step but maybe take more steps. Upon taking up atheism it is highly suggested to look over the many topics...
    though I as an atheist find nothing interesting yet with Charles Darwin having not finished yet my formal education.
    @Evidence is a very interesting individual, I brought him over from DDO because he was the only person who had courage enough to publicly admit that he saw the flat earth. I had a few private flat earthers conversing with me, and some people just disappeared . Evidence knows the Bible and he's anti religious. If the whole world can be brainwashed into believing they're apes on a spinning ball going around the sun just by hijacking the education system, religions could just as easily be hijacked. I know the earth is flat, this means this is propaganda :


    The great deception. 

    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    It's funny you provide your own definition to the word, "a person who believes there is no God." and then provide a link with the correct definition:

    "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"

    "But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists."
    Sure, but to that extent it would be disingenuous to suggest Christianity doesn't include the Westboro Christians that believe strongly that "god hates fags". 
    Yes, there are those who take their position a step further and want to make a claim that no god exists, but with regards to the actual definition of atheism (the one you linked, not the one you tried to pass off as the definition), it's simply a lack of belief. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    It's funny you provide your own definition to the word, "a person who believes there is no God." and then provide a link with the correct definition:

    "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"

    "But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists."
    Sure, but to that extent it would be disingenuous to suggest Christianity doesn't include the Westboro Christians that believe strongly that "god hates fags". 
    Yes, there are those who take their position a step further and want to make a claim that no god exists, but with regards to the actual definition of atheism (the one you linked, not the one you tried to pass off as the definition), it's simply a lack of belief. 
    I do not usually create my own words.  The definition I used for the word atheist is found in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.  You may need to scroll down to see the definition.  I will AGAIN provide the link:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Perhaps you are being disingenuous.  The definition is there for you to see.  I didn't create anything.  The problem is you left the page after you saw the first definition, without doing any further searching...scroll down and you will see the definition I provided, a perfectly legitimate definition for atheism.

    Here is an excerpt:

    ATHEIST Defined for English Language Learners

    atheist

    play

    Definition of atheist for English Language Learners

    • : a person who believes that God does not exist   <------------------------------------------------------------------------


    ATHEIST Defined for Kids

    atheist

    play
    noun  athe·ist \ˈā-thē-ist\

    Definition of atheist for Students

    1. :  a person who believes there is no God <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    No, I left the page after reading the only definition listed. The excerpt below written in paragraph form is their way of explaining the difference between an agnostic and atheist (two entirely different terms). The usage of atheist does not fit the context of their own definition and I would point that out as a flaw on their site. I would also believe that paragraph is more to explain the difference, with atheism focusing on belief whereas agnosticism is about knowledge. 

    I think it would be wise to introduce agnosticism to the conversation, because in order for someone to claim there is no god, they would have to be a gnostic atheist. Most atheists however, identify as agnostic atheists, meaning we do not believe in god, nor do we know if a god could even exist. 

    Like I pointed out in comparing Westboro. It's disingenuous to assume something is true of all atheists because of the words of a subset of us. Even Dawkins (someone to be considered a militant atheist) has said it's impossible to know if a god exists. 

    I understand the common use of the word - the usage in which most of us identify as - doesn't fit your personal agenda against us, but I can't help that. I know you have a narrative you're trying to stick to, but it only works on a minority of us. 
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    1) Time Zones – We’ve all seen lights fade away because the light source is too far away. I’ve never seen the sun “fade”, or look like a pin prick in the distance of darkness. Distance does not account for time zones.

    2) Coriolis effect – Again if we live on a flat disk WHY is it different on different places on the disk?

    3) Sun’s height – If the sun moves around on one side of this flat disk of yours it wouldn’t be lower in the sky all the time in certain parts of the world. Also, it stays directly above the center line of the planet. Law of perspective doesn’t work. Planes fades away at around 8 miles when it’s above us, we see none of the stuff you are indicating with them. Also even if everything you say is correct how is that “intelligent design”? It’s sounds like HORRIBLE design.

    4) Star move – Again the law of perspective does not make objects flip. Also if they stars are closer and smaller then they would fade if they moved away per the law of perspective. Stars don’t fade away. You make no sense.

    5) Horizon covers bottom first – I have given the example of a building were you can’t see the bottom, here is an example of a boat.

    As far as math being a science your article doesn’t disprove this to be true, it state’s “the answer depends on one’s philosophical views on the nature of mathematics”. I found an interesting article on the topic. 
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Just as a “for the record” being an atheist has NOTHING to do with thinking the big bang theory is true. These are separate concepts. An atheist can agree or disagree with the big bang theory and it makes no difference to his status as an atheist. The same is true of gravity, round earth, the moon landing, or whatever. This is why I stated earlier these topics are off the main topic of this debate.

    An atheist could be religious about money, or whatever, but an atheist can believe Darwin is god, as soon as they believe anything, or anyone is god, by definition, they quit being an atheist. This makes the phrase “The atheist god Darwin” a logical impossibility. (one of many that are being made in this thread)
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    I say "atheism is a lack of a belief in god" and you say it's disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists. Yes it's a well known fact that SOME words have many meanings others do not. Atheism and theism have very little blurriness of their definitions. As far as the strength of their believe or lack there of it has nothing to do with atheism or theism, that would agnostic and gnostic. It's a scale at that point.

    https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-98a62661b40389de41d38fa569335066 ;
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    No, I left the page after reading the only definition listed. The excerpt below written in paragraph form is their way of explaining the difference between an agnostic and atheist (two entirely different terms). The usage of atheist does not fit the context of their own definition and I would point that out as a flaw on their site. I would also believe that paragraph is more to explain the difference, with atheism focusing on belief whereas agnosticism is about knowledge. 

    I think it would be wise to introduce agnosticism to the conversation, because in order for someone to claim there is no god, they would have to be a gnostic atheist. Most atheists however, identify as agnostic atheists, meaning we do not believe in god, nor do we know if a god could even exist. 

    Like I pointed out in comparing Westboro. It's disingenuous to assume something is true of all atheists because of the words of a subset of us. Even Dawkins (someone to be considered a militant atheist) has said it's impossible to know if a god exists. 

    I understand the common use of the word - the usage in which most of us identify as - doesn't fit your personal agenda against us, but I can't help that. I know you have a narrative you're trying to stick to, but it only works on a minority of us. 
    I'm sorry, but you have already admitted that there are atheists you identify themselves according to the definition that I provided.  Shades of gray my friend, shades of gray.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I showed you definitions of the word to prove my point, I can get more if you like, they are all going to say the same thing because it's just like asymmetrical, asynchronous, agnostic, etc. The letter "A" in front of another word comes from greek, and just means "not". 

    https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-negative-prefixes/
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    I say "atheism is a lack of a belief in god" and you say it's disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists. Yes it's a well known fact that SOME words have many meanings others do not. Atheism and theism have very little blurriness of their definitions. As far as the strength of their believe or lack there of it has nothing to do with atheism or theism, that would agnostic and gnostic. It's a scale at that point.

    https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-98a62661b40389de41d38fa569335066 ;
    What you say is true, but atheism also includes the belief that no God exists.  There are no gnostic atheists, because it is impossible to know that there is no God.  From my perspective, gnostic vs. agnostic has nothing to do with degrees.  You either know something is true, or you do not.  There are no degrees of knowing.  If a supposed gnostic Christian were to find out that no god actually exists, could you still consider his former position of knowledge about god to be gnostic?  I don't think so.  We can be wrong about what we think we are, but we cannot know that which cannot be known.  Surely we can be agnostic with regard to many ideas or concepts, but once we know the truth, if it is indeed the truth, we are truly gnostic.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason agnostic and gnostic are opposite ends of the level of certainty. Certainty is a scale however. It is possible to mostly think god exists or to mostly think god doesn't exist. And yes you can go from being a gnostic to agnostic or vice versa, and this has nothing to do with absolute truths, this has to do with what the individual things is true. Again though this has nothing to do with atheism and theism, you either believe in god or your don't, your level of certainty does not change that classification. If you just barely believe god exists you are a theist, if you don't then you're an atheist. 
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason agnostic and gnostic are opposite ends of the level of certainty. Certainty is a scale however. It is possible to mostly think god exists or to mostly think god doesn't exist. And yes you can go from being a gnostic to agnostic or vice versa, and this has nothing to do with absolute truths, this has to do with what the individual things is true. Again though this has nothing to do with atheism and theism, you either believe in god or your don't, your level of certainty does not change that classification. If you just barely believe god exists you are a theist, if you don't then you're an atheist. 
    I will disagree.  But I have no problems with you thinking of it as you do.  It is my perception that knowledge must be true, and I personally associate gnostic with truth knowing.  

    Consider the word gnosticism as defined by Wikipedia:
    Gnosticism: (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge".

    Consider the definition of knowledge as defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
    Knowledge: the sum of what is known :  the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind.

    Obviously, from this definition we can see that knowledge is made up of either three components (i.e. truth, information, and principles), or quite possibly one component represented by three different words, (truth, information and principles)

    I will contend that the three are one.  Information must also be truth for it to be considered "true" information.  If it is not true information, it is disinformation, and disinformation is not information, but rather false information, which in all honestly cannot, by any reasonable account, be considered actual information.

    For information to be considered anything resembling knowledge, it must be true information.  And information is defined as "facts provided or learned about something or someone."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=information+def

    Principles are defined as "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."
    https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=principles+def

    We can't get around the fact that knowledge must be true in order for it to be considered knowledge...on to my example.

    Expressions of knowledge
    I say, "I know that 2+2=4"
    John Doe responds, "yes, you're right, and I agree"

    Here we have an example of two people who know that 2+2=4.  This information is knowledge because it is true.

    Expression lacking knowledge
    I say, "I know that 2+2=5"
    John Doe responds, "no sonofason, you cannot "know" that 2+2=5 because 2+2 is not=5, because 2+2=4.

    Here I am displaying a lack of knowledge, which cannot be considered knowledge because knowledge must be true.
    John Doe is displaying knowledge because his response is entirely true.  
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    All knowledge is true.  If it is not true, it is not knowledge.
    If you think you know something is true, but what you "think" is not true, you cannot know that it is true.  You can only think you know, and that is not knowledge and therefore not gnostic.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is only one thing that I know to be true. I existed, as with science everything else is about how likely it is to be true. Absolute truth of an object is impossible, and even if it exists the semantics around being able to communicate that truth are nearly impossible. 

    You can think a false to be true, and be gnostic about it. It has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the situation or even the mostly likely truth based on measurable, objective, peer reviewed research on the topic. Gnostic and agnostic are concepts at the end of the christianity spectrum that few ever reach. Most people aren't completely uncertain or completely certain about anything. That's why it's a scale.
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is only one thing that I know to be true. I existed, as with science everything else is about how likely it is to be true. Absolute truth of an object is impossible, and even if it exists the semantics around being able to communicate that truth are nearly impossible. 

    You can think a false to be true, and be gnostic about it. It has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the situation or even the mostly likely truth based on measurable, objective, peer reviewed research on the topic. Gnostic and agnostic are concepts at the end of the christianity spectrum that few ever reach. Most people aren't completely uncertain or completely certain about anything. That's why it's a scale.
    As I said, I am willing to accept your scale, but I assure you 2+2=4.  There are absolute truths, and if you know those truths, you have certain knowledge, or knowledge that is certainly knowledge.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017

    @Coveny
    "Time Zones – We’ve all seen lights fade away because the light source is too far away. I’ve never seen the sun “fade”, or look like a pin prick in the distance of darkness."

    You should probably get out more. Get above the hills and trees too. Again you're still ignoring atmospheric refraction. 




     
    "2) Coriolis effect – Again if we live on a flat disk WHY is it different on different places on the disk?"

    You don't comprehend the words practical examples? How does just typing the word coriolis prove your position? I've given the most practical example  (drains) for you, and debunked it. Ball's still in your court. Also, I've never implied the earth is a disk. It may be an infinite plane. 

    "3) Sun’s height – If the sun moves around on one side of this flat disk of yours it wouldn’t be lower in the sky all the time in certain parts of the world. Also, it stays directly above the center line of the planet. "

    You don't even know your own model.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

    Let alone enough about mine to effectively argue against it. The sun analemma proves conclusively that the sun makes a larger circuit in the south. If the earth were a ball, the sun analemma would be symmetrical. 


    "Law of perspective doesn’t work. Planes fades away at around 8 miles when it’s above us, we see none of the stuff you are indicating with them.

    You mean you've never heard a plane, seen it directly overhead and watched it go away from you? It appears to be losing altitude, but we know full well they fly level. 



    "Also even if everything you say is correct how is that “intelligent design”? It’s sounds like HORRIBLE design."

    Your opinion of a model you obviously don't understand is completely irrelevant. 

    "4) Star move – Again the law of perspective does not make objects flip. "

    Should i copy and paste the last rebuttal? Maybe a mental visual would help. Imagine you and a friend are on opposite sides of a room with an arrow facing your friend on the ceiling. Call your wall the north and his the south. You will see the arrow upside down, pointing at him, while he sees it right side up. This does not imply that the room is a sphere. It's simple optics.

    "Also if they stars are closer and smaller then they would fade if they moved away per the law of perspective. Stars don’t fade away. You make no sense."

    As i said, you're ignoring refraction. Water in the air causes objects to be magnified and lowered. A simple experiment confirms this. Fill a clear glass with water and place it at the eye's level. Place an object partially behind it, so that you can see both the actual position and size as well as it's apparent position and size. I know how much pseudoscientists detest actual scientific experiments, so I've conducted it myself three different ways. Here are the results of one.

    As you can see, the refracted position and size have changed to match what you've explained. If the object being refracted is close to the horizon, the lower portions will be intercepted by the ground plane. This explains most of your misunderstandings, including your next point. 

    5) Horizon covers bottom first – I have given the example of a building were you can’t see the bottom, here is an example of a boat.

    Have a look at this if you think boats go over any curvature. It includes a scaled down experiment that explains what is going on.



    As far as math being a science your article doesn’t disprove this to be true, it state’s “the answer depends on one’s philosophical views on the nature of mathematics”. I found an interesting article on the topic. 
    https://arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/

    Thanks for not reading either article and reinforcing my position. Quote from your source:
    "After much thought, I no longer think math is a science. Science must be empirical, meaning it must be based on observations of nature, and it must be potentially falsifiable by new observations of nature. This article makes some valid points but doesn't adequately emphasize science's empirical requirement. I'm leaving this article on my website as a historical artifact, not as a reflection of my current views."

    And you still ignore my evidence. 


    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    How about we bring this conversation back to religion vs atheism and leave the flat earth conspiracy for another debate?
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is only one thing that I know to be true. I existed, as with science everything else is about how likely it is to be true. Absolute truth of an object is impossible, and even if it exists the semantics around being able to communicate that truth are nearly impossible. 

    You can think a false to be true, and be gnostic about it. It has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the situation or even the mostly likely truth based on measurable, objective, peer reviewed research on the topic. Gnostic and agnostic are concepts at the end of the christianity spectrum that few ever reach. Most people aren't completely uncertain or completely certain about anything. That's why it's a scale.
    As I said, I am willing to accept your scale, but I assure you 2+2=4.  There are absolute truths, and if you know those truths, you have certain knowledge, or knowledge that is certainly knowledge.
    2 is an abstract and can NEVER be an absolute truth. One apple will never truly equal another apple. This is the basis of Evidence whole stance that math is not a science because it doesn't directly represent the physical world. Logically speaking you are correct, BUT you must stay at a higher level of abstraction to achieve it. When you compare apples, one apples cannot be exactly the same as another.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Erfisflat
    1) Time Zones – Me getting out more does not change that light sources “fade”, my point stands unrefuted. Refraction has nothing to do with darkness, not germane to this point. 

    2) Coriolis Effect – Still have not explained the differences, point stands unrefuted.

    3) Sun’s height – Your diagram does not address the suns’ height in the sky. In your diagram it stays the same height, and it wouldn’t be higher or lower in certain areas of the world. Secondly that proves a round earth rather than a flat earth, as the plane gets further away it gets closer to the earth by the viewer, even though it doesn’t really get closer to the earth in reality. My point stands unrefuted.

    4) Star move – We see the arrow exactly the same way in a room, it doesn’t flip. Secondly stars appear small not big, so “refraction” that makes objects bigger has no bearing on this discussion. Regardless of the size of the light, in the distance it should fade away if it’s like you say it is. (where the stars being close to the earth is the reason they move) My point stands unrefuted.

    5) Horizon – Your video show the boat “fading to obscurity” bottom first proving my point. (although all the talk about mirrors was annoying)  My point stands unrefuted.







    I have 5 points all of which are measurable which you have not refuted. You keep talking about things that do not address what I am talking about, and indicating they “disprove” me, when they don’t in any way. If anything you have reinforced my points proving the earth is a globe.
    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Sylynn said:
    How about we bring this conversation back to religion vs atheism and leave the flat earth conspiracy for another debate?
    Sounds like a LOVELY idea.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited July 2017
    Sylynn said:
    How about we bring this conversation back to religion vs atheism and leave the flat earth conspiracy for another debate?

    Ya, it looks like a stalemate  from ignorance anyway. How anyone can not understand how two people facing each other will see an object between them from two different angles is mindblowing. @Coveny whenever you get ready.



    http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4229#Comment_4229
    Sylynn
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    @Sylynn You too. Avoid it if you want, it proves atheists have the wrong belief system. Avoid it like the plague. 
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Sonofason said:
    Sylynn said:
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    No atheism is not a belief about anything. Atheism is a lack of a belief in god. That's it, and that's how everyone defines it. I
    It is a well known fact that words have many meanings. While it is true that there are people who lack the belief that God exists, there are also atheists who actually believe that no god exists.

    atheist:  "a person who believes there is no God."
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

    Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives.  We could.  We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
    be disingenuous to suggest Christianity doesn't include the Westboro Christians that believe strongly that "god hates fags". 
    Yes, there are those who take their position a step further and want to make a claim that no god exists, but with regards to the actual definition of atheism (the one you linked, not the one you tried to pass off as the definition), it's simply a lack of belief. 


    • : a person who believes that God does not exist   <------------------------------------------------------------------------


    ATHEIST Defined for Kids

    atheist

    play
    noun  athe·ist \ˈā-thē-i@Coveny

    Definition of atheist for Students

    1. :  a person who believes there is no God <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    wrong post, can't  delete, please ignore.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Evidence your back to ... wait NM you aren't. Did you go apply to NASA yet so you could be a god too? haha
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:

    ..... 

    @Coveny said: I don’t have a god, so I can’t tell you how my god is different from other gods. I’m not playing word games, or speaking around anything, you are confusing me… with yourself.

    You don't have a what/who? A god, what's that?
    You see, if I was serious about my above statement, that's how an atheist who doesn't believe that a god exists would respond with..

    Can you, or ANYONE tell me something that doesn't exist?
    Impossible, because it doesn't exist.

    The Higgs boson didn't exist until Mr. Higgs invented it.
    The imaginary Big-Banged universe didn't exist until the Catholic Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaitre invented it.
    Humans used to be human, until some grave robbing, skull&bones worshipping atheists said we are animals.

    Coveny said: My meaning of theism and atheism have them as opposites one believes in god one does not. There is no contradiction in my definitions. Again you are confusing me – with yourself.

    Yes, the theists believe in gods that everyone must accept on blind faith, of which not one is our Creator God, (again, and again as you keep avoiding my comments just as @Erfisflat said) because our Creator can be evidenced by science, while the theistic/atheistic gods must be accepted on blind faith.

    Coveny: More mystic crap I’m going to ignore.

    Because your religion commands you to ignore evidence of both Creator of the Earth and everything in it, and His creation. The only thing you are allowed to accept is what they tell you, and that on blind faith. And you must mock any evidence against your belief system. typical of all religions, theist or atheist.

    Coveny: I have stated my side, you have done nothing to prove me wrong. You talk in circle about gods who aren’t gods. How everything was created, but not everything was created. And many other logical impossibilities. You have repeatedly used words wrong.

    This is a debating sight, and you keep making general fallacious statements about the evidences I present. As for your "Angels don't have free will", that's the gods/deities you claim you don't believe in talking, and I'm not an exorcist, so I cannot help you there.
    You can pray can't you? Just not to any of the deities that you don't believe in, OK?
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Evidence again making logical impossibilities. A god that's not a god. An athiest who believes in god. I hold with no religion, I hold with no god, and I very much hold there was not a uncreated creator which you have ZERO evidence of, and is a logical impossibility. If everything MUST be created, then how can you have an uncreated creator? If you show as proof of a creator the complexity of the universe, then anything that created it must be more complex, this is another logical hole in your argument.

    Theists believe in gods. period. end sentence. Just as you believe in your creator god on blind faith, and science does NOT support you. Speaking of fallacies you are committing one. It's called shifting the burden of proof. You say your god exists, then they burden of proof is on YOU. YOU must prove your god exists, I don't have prove it doesn't exist. 


    or here - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

    What fallacy have I made? Name the fallacy, and point to where I did it. Otherwise don't make vague baseless accusations.

    No I can't pray... I'm an atheist.
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Evidence
    I'm speechless. The level of fallaciousness in your arguments is beyond anything I've ever seen.

    "Can you, or ANYONE tell me something that doesn't exist?
    Impossible, because it doesn't exist."

    So you think that everything that can be said doesn't exist actually does? You believe there is a colony of banana worshipping pixies out there that is responsible for the existence of this universe? Again, I'm speechless.

    "The Higgs boson didn't exist until Mr. Higgs invented it."
    So Mr Higgs has the ability to create a physical object with just the power of his thoughts?

    "The imaginary Big-Banged universe didn't exist until the Catholic Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaitre invented it."
    How could a Catholic priest exist if the universe did not yet exist?

    "Humans used to be human, until some grave robbing, skull&bones worshipping atheists said we are animals."
    What it must be like in your mind... I don't worship bones, nor do I believe bones are capable of doing anything more than just providing structure and support to our bodies. You are clearly demonstrating you hate science, and I can't help you there. That being the case, you should probably get rid of every piece of technology you own as these are all the result of science.

    "Yes, the theists believe in gods that everyone must accept on blind faith, of which not one is our Creator God,"
    A theist is a broad term simply meaning someone who believes in a personal god. Christianity is simply a particular brand of theism. 

    "atheistic gods must be accepted on blind faith."
    No such thing

    "Because your religion commands you"
    I have to stop you right there since we don't have a religion. 

    I have to admit, I spent over 30 years as a Christian, but if I had been taught the ridiculousness you believe is true, I wouldn't have lasted a day in it. 
    Coveny
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Coveny - "No I can't pray... I'm an atheist."
    Sure you can. Just come up with an imaginary friend like they have, and talk to him. That's all they do, but they've simply attached the label "pray" to it.
    Coveny
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Sylynn haha I pray to Joe Pesci! I miss Carlin.   :'(


    Sylynn
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Sylynn haha I pray to Joe Pesci! I miss Carlin.   :'(


    Me too!





    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • SonofasonSonofason 448 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Sonofason said:
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason your logic is fundamentally flawed. There is only one thing that I know to be true. I existed, as with science everything else is about how likely it is to be true. Absolute truth of an object is impossible, and even if it exists the semantics around being able to communicate that truth are nearly impossible. 

    You can think a false to be true, and be gnostic about it. It has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the situation or even the mostly likely truth based on measurable, objective, peer reviewed research on the topic. Gnostic and agnostic are concepts at the end of the christianity spectrum that few ever reach. Most people aren't completely uncertain or completely certain about anything. That's why it's a scale.
    As I said, I am willing to accept your scale, but I assure you 2+2=4.  There are absolute truths, and if you know those truths, you have certain knowledge, or knowledge that is certainly knowledge.
    2 is an abstract and can NEVER be an absolute truth. One apple will never truly equal another apple. This is the basis of Evidence whole stance that math is not a science because it doesn't directly represent the physical world. Logically speaking you are correct, BUT you must stay at a higher level of abstraction to achieve it. When you compare apples, one apples cannot be exactly the same as another.
    Apples are apples.  If you have 2 apples you have two apples.  If you add two more apples, you've added two more apples.  2 apples plus another 2 apples is 4 apples.  You can say it isn't true, but then, you'd be wrong.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Sonofason An apple with bruises does not equal an apple without bruises. So although 1 does equal 1 and a high level of abstraction, 1 will NEVER equal 1 in a low level of abstraction, as it's impossible to have exactly the same object twice. To take the apple example into your math example 2 apples plus 2 rotten apples equals 4 apples right? And if you purchased those 4 apples from me you would have an issue because I sold you 4 apples, and apples are apples. Does it make sense now?
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    @Sonofason An apple with bruises does not equal an apple without bruises. So although 1 does equal 1 and a high level of abstraction, 1 will NEVER equal 1 in a low level of abstraction, as it's impossible to have exactly the same object twice. To take the apple example into your math example 2 apples plus 2 rotten apples equals 4 apples right? And if you purchased those 4 apples from me you would have an issue because I sold you 4 apples, and apples are apples. Does it make sense now?
    We are talking about quantity of apples, not the quality of them. If I bought 4 apples and two were rotten, I still purchased 4 apples. Despite being rotten, they are indeed apples. Yes, as a consumer I would have issues, but the issue is because there is an expectation when you purchase goods, that those goods are in proper condition (in this case, not rotten). 
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Sylynn why is there an expectation when you purchase apples? They are indeed apples. And no I'm not talking about quality I'm talking about levels of abstraction and using quality as ONE indicator of that. I could use the various different types of apples, differences in taste between apples, or any of hundreds (maybe thousands) of ways at a low level of abstraction 1 apple will never equal 1 apple.
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Coveny "why is there an expectation when you purchase apples?"

    Seriously? If you were to buy a brand new TV from a reputable company, brought it home and set everything up, but found it didn't work, you wouldn't be surprised? You didn't have an expectation that the device you spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on would function?

    "I'm talking about levels of abstraction"
    That's the issue. An abstraction is nothing but an idea without evidence of it's existence. I don't care if it's in perfect shape, bruised or rotten. I don't care if it's a Golden Delicious, Granny Smith, or a crab apple. If it fits the description of being an apple, it's an apple. 

    The same can be said for dogs. From a biological standpoint, is a poodle any less of a dog than a husky? If one husky loses a tooth is it now less of a dog than another dog? What if it loses a leg? Is it no longer a dog? 
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    @Sylynn would you? A TV is a TV after all? The description fits of it being a TV, it's a TV. 

    At a level of abstraction yes an apple is a apple, that's the issue. 

    A dog is the high level, a poodle is a lower level, your dog spot is even lower. At a high level they are all equal, but a husky isn't equal to a poodle now is it? And you sure wouldn't be willing to trade the family pet for another dog because a dog is a dog. 
    Erfisflat
  • SylynnSylynn 71 Pts   -  
    @Coveny ;Would I be upset if I purchased a brand new TV and it didn't work? Absolutely. Why? Because I live in a real world, not in a world of abstraction. I'm done with your nonsense.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch