It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Stop, stop. Do not speak. The ultimate truth is not even to think.
1. Bhuddha asserts no one should think therefore invalidating his entire precept of the mind and effecting the possibility of change
We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.
1. Contradicts two pretenses and cancels out both pretensesWhatever precious jewel there is in the heavenly worlds, there is nothing comparable to one who is Awakened.
1.Bhuddha insinuates his lack of knowledge of the heavenly words and contradicts the theory of nirvana 2.Bhuddha, insinuates to disregard the heavens and to ignore them3.Bhuddha insinuates not to pursue laws in accordance with the heavens4.Bhuddha statement relects that he does not place importance on the heavenly world or laws5.Therefore bhuddha is against the law to obey the heavens and the God of people.6.bhuddha places no importance on heaven7. Bhuddha insinuates there is something greater than heaven and what's in heaven I.E GodTherefore,Bhuddha as an act of ommision states he assumes he is greater than God and that he is God's enemy
Our theories of the eternal are as valuable as are those which a chick which has not broken its way through its shell might form of the outside world.
1.Bhuddha suggests theory's are important not knowledge, and invalidates the importance of his own theory's while asserting any contradictory theory is valid, therefore invalidating his own.In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.
Bhuddha contradicts himself and Thermakes Distinctions, has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it.
More distinctionsTo be idle is a short road to death and to be diligent is a way of life; foolish people are idle, wise people are diligent.Bhuddha disqualifies his own statements based on the assertion of his precepts
The rest of the post in a following post.Let me post the entirety of the post before commenting.
Jesus is God.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Hinduism category's
1. Spiritual atheism
2. Spiritual Monotheism
3. Spiritual polytheism
4. Bhuddhism
All aspects of the religion contradict the religion itself, as aspects of the religion oppose other aspects of the religion.
god's rely on other god's.
The fallacy asserts god's are reliant beings, not all powerfull or all capable of doing what other false god's are capable of doing.
Hinduism is so ridiculously differential that no aspect of the religion can be used to effectively define it.
hinduism rather is a multitude of religions as a religion insinuating that Hinduism asserts religion is a fallacy.
Hinduism lacks orthodoxy. Therefore Hinduism and it's truth are not particular.
Any contradiction is assumed equally as truth.
Bahá'í Faith
Insinuates religions are all valid and any religious premise that contradicts their own religion is asserted by bahis to be valid which invalidates all religious precepts that are contrary to a religious diversity.
and [they] deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers"
Sura 3:54
1. The false god of islam lies.
Logical fallacy
2. God ( Yahweh) has no reason to deceive his creations.
3.Someone who values dishonesty does not have honest intentions and can not be God.
4.The quran is not a holy book. There is nothing holy about dismembering, beheading, or killing another person nor would the creator of human being request the death of what he created.omniscience would define that someone who knows what a person is going to wind up doing would simply not create such a person if rebellion is not tolerated.
5. The philosiphy of the religion of Muslims is murder, and deceitfullness.
6.The false god of islam states that he is deceitful beyond all others. The false god allah declares that it's proud of the fact that it is capable of being the greatest of liers.
7.Logically, If someone declared they were fond of lieng and prided themselves on lieng they would most undoubtably have a lack of interest in honesty or the truth.so wouldn't it be obvious that they would then deceive people about what is True?
8.It should be apparently obvious, How much is true about allahs claim about being a god if when allahs deceitful? It wouldn't bother such a personality to lie about it's lack of authority nor it's title.
9.Infact someone who says they are wholefully deceitful can not be trusted nor insinuate they are being honest.such is a contradiction. If anyone said they are proud of the fact they lie but they are telling you the truth, such a contradiction determines they are indeed lieng about the truth.
10.Considering allahs not concerned with the truth, or being honest himself with anyone but delights in his dishonesty with others how does such a false god hold anyone accountable on account of his deception being a moral failure, on part of the person it deceived while also considering, why would such a being be concerned if anyone cared if the quran was legitimate, which it's not when it itself is not concerned with the truth?
11.The fact and answer is because allah is satan. The proto-hebrew word for allah is satan.muslims have no problem with deceiving others themselves. Jesus is Lord. Not allah , allah's a false god I reject.
12.This means the false god allah would rather lie about the truth, the Bible, and the spiritual reality of the world. Such an extreme disinterest for honesty, makes the false god just that. A false god and .
13.A god could not suggest people should be honest while being dishonest with the people he expects honesty from. allahs a FALSE God I reject.
14. Therefore the false god lied to a false prophet.
Judaism:
This is hard evaluation.
Mormonism
Mormonism crosses a threshold of aliens and the Bible and an named Joseph Smith who read and wrote comics.
Universal Unitarianism
Asserts that its not based on truth as it asserts the religion is
free and responsible search for truth and meaning".
That would determine anyone who search's for truth or meaning is religious
Rastafarianism
Contradictory because God Jesus came to die primarily for brown Jews.
Taoism
Taoism is completely philosiphy and has nothing to do with existence or creation.
Yoruba religion
The entire false religion is based on destiny or fate
The majority of all other religions are
1. Pantheon's whose false gods are reliant on eachother
2.philosiphies without a god.
3. Scientific spiritualism
Jesus is Lord.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 38%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: actual genuine religious people    retarded attempt   argument   insult  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's basing whether or not such is applied to reality based on the statements of a person. If a person's statements conflict with previous statements they are found to be lieng.
Feeling has nothing to do with a logical assessment.
You being upset or mad because someone is evaluating what someone has said is ignoring contradictions that are presented as a basis for the religion.
Anything anyone asserts is open to scrutiny.
A debate is an argument.
The argument stated is that religion is fallacy because it is not based on real world information.
Contradictions assess that something's not genuine.
As if people's belief justify what they believe in as genuine.
Fallacy.
You get docked for any sense in your counter argument and receive a big fat F.
Jesus is Lord.
There is one actual cause of the universe. You don't get to choose.
To ignore reality is FALLACY, a logically failing argument.
You need a lecture on scrutiny. It seems I hit a nerve because your religion is fallacious.
It's because your religion is fallacious that it is, not because it's reality fault for making you realize it.
Jesus is Lord.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: statements of a person    real world information.Contradictions   argument.The argument   people's belief  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
An argument is controversial, therefore arguments were never intended to make someone comfortable.
Do not participate in a debate because your uncomfortable.
Debates are not based on emotional appeal, they are meant to scrutinized the logic of an assertion.
Religion is stated to be THEORETICAL, an assertion, therefore it falls under scrutiny.
To suggest people shouldn't determine what's true by a process of elimination suggests to failed every test you have ever taken because you thought it would be rude to invalidate one of the supposed answers.
You do realise your suppose to answer questions, not act like there is know way of knowing something.
How much you know is based on your personal level of expierience or information.
Don't offer a debate a fallacious emotional appeal as a way to counter reasoning , zues.
Jesus is Lord.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Second arguments    level of comfort.An argument   emotional appeal   personal level of expierience  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
Either refute what I said as to the reasons it was illogical based on a logical argument or stop making in an evaluations and suggesting something is fallacy without stating a logical reason.
Anyone who suggests something's fallacy without a logical argument has no reason to avoid stating a counter-argument.
Jesus is Lord.
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: logical argument    assertion of my statement   fallacy   logical reason.Anyone  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
So another fallacy of religion,
Suggests a blue person named krishna was killed by a hunter who had mistaken a blue man for a brown deer.
Jesus is Lord
the sleeping Krishna for a deer, a hunter named Jara shoots an arrow that fatally injures him. Krishna forgives Jara and dies. While some believe that Krishna died at the age of 125, the other set of people on the basis of research done on his life say that he was 88 when he died.
Additionally no one thought it was important to document the blue false god s age.
So it is made aware to the public, krishna was all knowing.
If it's insinuated he died because he was asleep logically an all knowing person would never fall asleep knowing that if they did they would have been killed by a hunter while they were unasleep unaware of what could happen.
Jesus Is Lord only.
Religion is fallacy. Fallacy asserts contradiction and contradiction outlines that something is false, not in accordance with the Truth.
Yahweh said he is the truth the way and the life and no man comes unto the father except through him.
Jesus is Lord and God.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: false god krishna    fallacy of religion   blue person   blue false god s age.So  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
Maybe Buddhism is a true philosophy, after all they seek a state of nothingness, and it would seem that if they continue on this path that they are on that's what they will get in the end, nothing... the sound of one hand clapping....
“Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: state of nothingness    Buddhism   philosophy   path  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: religious beliefs    religious concept   play Jesus Christ   error  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".
"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm? Well I don't much appreciate your stup!d".
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
Base a logical argument.
You haven't don't so.
Apparently you haven't realized there is no counter-argument for a statement that is logical.
There are 4 unary operations:
Logical trueEdit
The output value is always true, regardless of the input value of pLogical TruepTTTFT
Logical falseEdit
The output value is never true: that is, always false, regardless of the input value of pLogical FalsepFTFFF
Logical identityEdit
Logical identity is an operation on one logical value p, for which the output value remains p.The truth table for the logical identity operator is as follows:Logical IdentityppTTFF
Logical negationEdit
Logical negation is an operation on one logical value, typically the value of a proposition, that produces a value of true if its operand is false and a value of false if its operand is true.The truth table for NOT p (also written as ¬p, Np, Fpq, or ~p) is as follows:Logical Negation.p¬pTFFT
There are 16 possible truth functions of two binary variables:
Truth table for all binary logical operatorsEdit
Here is an extended truth table giving definitions of all possible truth functions of two Boolean variables P and Q:[note 1]
where
The four combinations of input values for p, q, are read by row from the table above. The output function for each p, q combination, can be read, by row, from the table.
Key:
The following table is oriented by column, rather than by row. There are four columns rather than four rows, to display the four combinations of p, q, as input.
p: T T F F
q: T F T F
There are 16 rows in this key, one row for each binary function of the two binary variables, p, q. For example, in row 2 of this Key, the value of Converse nonimplication ('{\displaystyle \nleftarrow }') is solely T, for the column denoted by the unique combination p=F, q=T; while in row 2, the value of that '{\displaystyle \nleftarrow }' operation is F for the three remaining columns of p, q. The output row for {\displaystyle \nleftarrow } is thus
2: F F T F
and the 16-row[4] key is
Apparently you haven't realized if you make a false statement it's going the result is it's a false statement.
Your not vary good with variables however.
I don't fictionalize evil intent or evil intensions.
You do because you intend to deceive, therefore your evil.
If you think I would betray the actual God Jesus Christ your nutts. never going to happen.
I have pictures of bill Nye destroying biblical archeology.
You disregard evidence.
I'm more than willing to die for what I know is true.
1. All religious people KNOWINGLY defy God ( Jesus Christ my Lord.)
It doesn't take much to realize if you had to carve a statue than what you carve is not real.
People use the same wood they make to carve a statue for firewood.
God states you worship at an alter. No images.
1. The same God (Yahweh) that applies to one person in application applies to everything.
How do I break this down to you.
For the sake of teaching you about reality,
I'm going to use a simple logical examniation for truth.
You can not handle complex equations.
Most of you have no grasp of science and suggest that scientific assertions apply to something they don't.
So you need a simple way to understand.
Truth is true
Fiction is false
You've never heard of propositional logic.
Propositional logic is easily used to determine fallacy.
P or q
not
p and q
You suggest p and q .
If p and q are contradictory than p and q can not be true only p or q.
If p and q are asserted to be equally true when they are equally contradictory they are worth false as the variable determines (U)P or (U)Q over P or Q.
Therefore it is either p or q
If it is suggested (U)P or (U) q then the statements can not be asserted as true. Therefore of anything contradicts either p or q and is true both p and q are false.
If p contradicts q then logically you use another system of logic
In mathematical logic, a predicate is commonly understood to be a Boolean-valued function P: X→ {true, false}, called the predicate on X.
The truth table associated with the material conditional if p then q (symbolized as p → q) is as follows:
It may also be useful to note that p ⇒ q and p → q are equivalent to ¬p ∨ q.
It's called discrete math
If you assert P and then violate the condition that P is true while asserting Q it's called logical inequality.
Anyone who asserts that P is Q and Q is P asserts a logical inequality and determines they neither know if p or q is true therefore p or q can not both be true as either would determine the other false.
When someone expresses a logical inequality however they can not suggest either P or Q is known.
T
If
Therefore only true statements if they are true are true.
Any statement that is in conflict with statements that are from the same person determine the person's statements are false.
I'm not going to explain it you because your going to get lost
For sake of argument
if you suggest something definedis defined by P(x) as {x | P(x)}, and is the set of objects for which P is true.
Then you can not say
-P(x) as {x| -P (x)} for which {x| P(x) • - {x| -P(x)} is True as they are directly conflicting sets.
For instance, {x | x is a natural number less than 4} is the set {1,2,3}.
If t is an element of the set {x | P(x)}, then the statement P(t) is true.
Your suggesting which is fallacy that P(t) + P(f) + P(tf) = P(t)
Apparently no one taught you there is an actual difference between what is true and what is false.
Any combination of statements that contain conflicting views, are contradictory.
Jesus is Lord.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Exhaustive evaluations don't need to be long they simply need to evaluate.
1 a summary total of what's being evaluated. Exhaustive in the sense your implying is that I'd waste going over ever single word that was ever spoken by someone to create an exhaustive examaniation.
Exhaustive is defined as
complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something.
That's the definition Merriam Webster uses.
Jesus is Lord.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Exhaustive evaluations    single word   exhaustive examaniation.Exhaustive   sense  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
So you realize since true and false statements are based on variables you can predict whose wrong in an argument based on the variables in a truth table.
You don't make sense.
Who uses an emotional appeal in an argument?
Jesus is Lord.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 53%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: false statements    truth table.You   variables   emotional appeal  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's not logical.
You get - 2
Zeus=
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: logical arguments    none   Zeus   emotional appeal  
  Relevant (Beta): 27%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 6%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Lord         
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 69%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 0.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: nbsp    logic   zumba classes   lt  
  Relevant (Beta): 52%  
  Learn More About Debra
You would do well to take my advice about learning this stuff a bit more before you make yourself look any more foolish than you already do.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Jesus IS LORD because YAHWEH JESUS IS.
Look up the definition of reality.
It excludes the possibility of interpretation.
Jesus is Lord.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: YAHWEH JESUS IS.Look    definition of reality.It   LORD   possibility of interpretation.Jesus  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
@jesusisGod777
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Jesus Christ    honest truth   Jesus   United State  
  Relevant (Beta): 38%  
  Learn More About Debra
As an independent non-religious observer, I see that all religions have one thing in common: they are based on assumptions not grounded on real world evidence. As a person with a mathematical mind, I cannot accept anything that derives from the initial set of axioms not based on reality. In mathematics, we do have a lot of somewhat arbitrary axioms, but they always have some basis on what we observe around us; for example, the axiom stating that parallel lines never intersect is based on the intuitively obvious truth, and while it cannot be strictly proven per se, it does seem reasonable based on our observations. On the other hand, say, your religion is based on the axiom that there is a being called "god" - one that has no real world evidence suggesting that this axiom should be accepted.
A lot of your arguments go in circles: "My religion is right because it says it is right". This is not how logic works, however. You can only judge a statement on its own merit, and whoever made that statement should not be a factor in your analysis.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your comments here can easily be shown to be illogical.
>...for example, the axiom stating that parallel lines never intersect is based on the intuitively obvious truth, and while it cannot be strictly proven per se, it does seem reasonable based on our observations.
So for this axiom, you have no evidence, but you accept it anyway.
>On the other hand, say, your religion is based on the axiom that there is a being called "god" - one that has no real world evidence suggesting that this axiom should be accepted.
Yet you require "real world evidence" for this axiom. Why?
First, there is real world evidence, you simply reject it. The very existence of the universe and the need for a first cause all are evidence of the existence of God.
That you reject it does not mean it doesn't exist.
Second, an easy experiment with parallel lines will show how your bias has crippled your thinking.
Take 2 infinite lines that intersect, A and B, and try to make them parallel by straightening one of the lines, line B, on an axis. It isn't possible. No matter how much you turn line B, it still intersects line A. The intersection just moves further and further away, but always intersects.
Thus when you said,
>...the axiom stating that parallel lines never intersect is based on the intuitively obvious truth...
It is intuitive yes, but is not truth.
You are just assuming it is truth based subjectively on experience.
Whereas the theist is assuming truth based objectively on logic.
Everything must have a cause, with the first cause being God.
>...one that has no real world evidence suggesting that this axiom should be accepted.
Axioms are accepted for only 2 reasons, Axioms have no real world evidence, but appear to be logically true, and every belief must begin at some point that cannot be regressed, thus axioms precedes every truth claim.
Real world evidence has no bearing on why they are accepted.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 77%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
All we need is honest definition of words.
What makes it exhausting is the constant equivocation.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: honest definition of words.What    constant equivocation   nbsp   exhausting  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra