Debate Comments: Bible or Atheism

[Gnug215]

I also suggest that dotoree/TruthisLife7 gets a word maximum of 1,000 per post... and that every time dotoree/TruthisLife7 mentions something about his private life, he loses 10% of his 1,000 word privelege.

Hmm.. what does that bring him down to by now?

I cannot second this suggestion, because of the losing of 10% of this 1,000 word limit. I could second the 1,000 word limit though.

I was really joking about the 10% reduction penalty, wanting to indicate that that would bring dotoree/TruthisLife7 word limit down to 10 words already.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I also suggest that dotoree/TruthisLife7 gets a word maximum of 1,000 per post... and that every time dotoree/TruthisLife7 mentions something about his private life, he loses 10% of his 1,000 word privelege.

Hmm.. what does that bring him down to by now?

Actually, I think this ends the debate... :lol:

Seriously though, this guy needs to limit his posts to 2-3 specific points and concrete support for each point, not this scattershot nonsense that he's currently engaged in. At this stage, dotoree seems to be incapable of having a coherent discussion let alone a semi-rigorous debate. He'd probably claim that we're saying all this because we're mean materialists and we just disagree with him. Truth is, he's not presenting anything substantial enough for anyone to address the pros and cons of his position.

I think his next post should be limited to 300 words and four or five sentences. He needs to state his thesis, then the 3-4 supporting points he will present. That's IT, or he conceded defeats and the debate ends...

... and maybe he goes and seeks the help of a professional. Seriously, more than 10,000 words in two posts and he's basically said nothing of any real value. Even at a miraculous 80 words per minute typing rate, that's two solid uninterrupted hours of typing to express no ideas of any worth, plus a bunch of semi-paranoid nonsense about AronRa that has NOTHING to do with the debate.

Hell, another mention of AronRa should count as an auto forfeit.

 

[Laurens]

I would be more inclined to discuss this debate if I could actually bring myself to read any of TruthisLife7's inane rambles from start to finish...

I just can't do it...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

... and maybe he goes and seeks the help of a professional. Seriously, more than 10,000 words in two posts and he's basically said nothing of any real value. Even at a miraculous 80 words per minute typing rate, that's two solid uninterrupted hours of typing to express no ideas of any worth, plus a bunch of semi-paranoid nonsense about AronRa that has NOTHING to do with the debate.

Well, according to studies people type the fastest when they're either passionate about something, or into the moment of something - I've pumped out 2 different essays, 5 pages a piece, in a rather fast amount of time. However, you're absolutely right:
His posts are nothing but wool on a sheep, and he's talking about how awesome lambchops are going to be for dinner tonight.
(Perhaps he doesn't want us to see that he's simply pasted carpet on a pig?)

I have a conjecture -
Copypasta.

 

[Prolescum]

Lordy, this is just... I know I should just be pointing and laughing, but I have to.

Atheism being a worldview depends to some extent on the definitions of atheism and worldview. See definitions here:

Yes, people apply extra descriptors for their view on gods, it doesn't change atheism itself (if I call myself a jodhpur atheist, it doesn't change what atheism is, it just shows the lengths I'm willing to go to to make a poor gag), which is simply an answer to a single question (and hence, not a worldview). I thought you taught English? Is it a hobby?

I prefer this definition of worldview:
"A worldview, naturalistic or not, is a multi-purpose cognitive tool that can help make sense of our situation and guide behavior over the long haul. It's the big picture about reality and the meaning(s) of life that puts things in an ultimate context, there to be consulted if we need it"¦

Atheism doesn't conform to this definition of a worldview either. It says nothing about "the big picture" or the "meaning of life". It doesn't say a thing about the meaning of anything.

Atheism says there is little or no evidence for God.

Atheism doesn't say that, some atheists do. Quite an important distinction.

My friend Mr Malaprop is an atheist because, as he put it, "What, the dead guy with the chocolate eggs thing he stole from Getafix? Yeah, that's all bollocks." He wouldn't know if there were evidence or not (hint: there isn't), and couldn't care less; he thinks the concept of gods is idiotic and pays it no mind.

Atheists also often advocate the idea that if we can't sense it or test something in some way, it probably doesn't exist, esp. in regard to religious claims.

Atheists can advocate whatever they like, it still says nothing about atheism.

A DIRECT result of atheism is that we should not look to religion for wisdom or truth.

Bollocks. Utter irrumationing bollocks. I've read your bible more than once, it's as intellectually nutritious as manioc is capable of flight; there's nothing in there that effective parenting and common sense can't teach you (and they've been around longer). Wisdom doesn't come from blatherings about snakes, locusts, zombies and melodramatic tribal wars, and truth most certainly doesn't.

However, that has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with the fantasy peddlers.

Then there were pages of... fan-wank. Inferno, you have my utmost respect. GO BLUES!

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Alright Truth, let us suppose that I were one of those Christians who doesn't take the divinity of Jesus seriously and believes that the stories recounted in the Old Testament were all fables, but that Jesus was nonetheless a great moral teacher.

I am an atheist, I don't believe in a god or gods, but world view is Christianity.

See now how your assertion fails?

Finally, I just couldn't pass up on this:

A DIRECT result of atheism is that we should not look to religion for wisdom or truth.

Nonsense. As it happens I tend to think that there is more wisdom and truth to be found in the collective works of Shakespeare then in any one of the worlds allegedly holy books, but to say that there is none to be found there... or that one ought not look? That is much too far.

For instance: nine of the commandments I find unsatisfactory, being either useless, or obvious, or lacking in scope. One, however, I consider to be fairly nuanced and - given the time period and apparent disposition of it's authors - rather cleaver.

And why not? Just because the author says, "and you must obey these rules because God said so!" doesn't mean that the rules themselves are necessarily bad just because you don't believe in said god, why would it?

It's just the same as how you don't have to ascribe the the cult of Athena to enjoy the Parthenon.

 

[Inferno]

Inferno, you have my utmost respect. GO BLUES!

Let's see if you still have respect for me after my reply. Gosh that dotoree guy tires me...

 

[Squawk]

Technically you're not allowed to post in here inferno, standard debate rules, though since that post does not discuss the debate at all we'll leave it for now

 

[Aught3]

Btw, readers, if you see this debate stopped before I make a concluding statement, summarizing the evidence that has been covered in depth before, and signing off with best wishes to everyone, esp. Inferno, you can know that I've been censored/banned (as has happened at a couple other atheist sites) and that there is much evidence for God that atheists don't want you to know about

Seriously? He's allowed to create a second account, participate in a lengthy debate, and asked multiple times to provide his evidence in another thread. If he doesn't manage to state his evidence before he gets banned then he'll only have himself to blame.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Don't ban him.

I have a much better idea -
next time, pit him against Historian. If he wants to play this game of drowning in text, I suggest feeding him an entire river of text by our one-and-only #1 King of reading and Fully Responding. And he is not allowed to fall out due to "Overwhelming post content."

 

[DepricatedZero]

Don't ban him.

I have a much better idea -
next time, pit him against Historian. If he wants to play this game of drowning in text, I suggest feeding him an entire river of text by our one-and-only #1 King of reading and Fully Responding. And he is not allowed to fall out due to "Overwhelming post content."

This idea has merit.

Historian impresses me constantly with his thorough responses.

 

[Snufkin]

I'm not impressed so far. Here are my feelings:

+ 10,000 words is ridiculous, and the subject is sprawling all over the place.
A good debate shouldn't have people rambling for hours. Make a good point and let the opponent counter it.
The debate should drill down to the cause of contention, not branch out until every topic under the sun has been discussed.

+ Referencing opinion pieces, like the Love and Sex article which talks about various studies but doesn't properly reference them is worthless.

+ Giving out links willy nilly is not good. It forces the opponent to disagree with things that may be in the article, further bloating the debate. Some of the links don't even work (e.g. http://www.forbes.com/health/2005/10/05/cz_af_1005healthslide_2.html?thisSpeed=6000 ).

 

[australopithecus]

No one is going to ban him. If Dotoree wants to be a martyr then he'll have to go elsewhere because we're not going feed the guy's delusion.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Cap the Word Limit.

And yeah, don't ban him - we should just pull in Historian and fight fire with fire.
Words with Words, so to say.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Don't ban him.

I have a much better idea -
next time, pit him against Historian. If he wants to play this game of drowning in text, I suggest feeding him an entire river of text by our one-and-only #1 King of reading and Fully Responding. And he is not allowed to fall out due to "Overwhelming post content."

Im not sure im too enthuastic about debating him. To me it would sound like a recipie for the creation of a whole load of mess given his debating style. :lol:

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Male penis size isn't correlated with pleasure and neither is female breast size, as far as I'm aware. Granted, I'll take a C-cup over an A-cup any time, but that's personal preference. There are a few hypotheses out there as to why they are the way they are but none of them have enough foundations as of yet so I'll have to lay this aside as "not enough evidence, let's look into it further".

For the record, human sexuality correlates very closely to bonobo sexuality, and our sexual peculiarities (large penises, permanently swollen breasts, longer duration of sexual intercourse, etc.) seem to have to do with the fact that - of all the known species on the planet - humans engage in the most purely recreational sex, with no obvious reproductive purpose.

As in bonobos, the purpose of this behavior is thought to be the reinforcement of social bonds. Bonobos are also the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex. Far from counting as a point against evolution, this reinforces the notion that humans and bonobos share a common ancestor.



Very nice post, by the way.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Wow that was a nice read Inferno, it is rare that i have to agree with everything somebody wrote.
I am afraid you did open pandora's box with the magic/blind faith thing but that is actually only TruthisLife's problem for not being able to accept it. But.. we will probably have to endure more wishy washy because of that.
Oh well.. can't be helped i guess. Anyway, once more, very nice read.

@Bryan, if you read this, please, whatever your reply is, define the missing terms as well so you can finally get to the evidence soon..

 

[Andiferous]

Male penis size isn't correlated with pleasure and neither is female breast size, as far as I'm aware. Granted, I'll take a C-cup over an A-cup any time, but that's personal preference. There are a few hypotheses out there as to why they are the way they are but none of them have enough foundations as of yet so I'll have to lay this aside as "not enough evidence, let's look into it further".

For the record, human sexuality correlates very closely to bonobo sexuality, and our sexual peculiarities (large penises, permanently swollen breasts, longer duration of sexual intercourse, etc.) seem to have to do with the fact that - of all the known species on the planet - humans engage in the most purely recreational sex, with no obvious reproductive purpose.

As in bonobos, the purpose of this behavior is thought to be the reinforcement of social bonds. Bonobos are also the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex. Far from counting as a point against evolution, this reinforces the notion that humans and bonobos share a common ancestor.



Very nice post, by the way.

Yes (from my forgetful self).

Humans have done oodles of experiments on other primates in the last century alone in an effort to (probably) understand themselves. There are many recordings of sexual experiments, experimentations and observations of other primates and great apes in an effort to understand humans. Sexual hormonal experiments were carried out on rhesus macaques so to better understand the effects of Testosterone and Estrogen on humans. And Macaques have also shown open receptivity to same-sex couplings. I think it's fair to say that much of what we scientifically know about sex among humans was gleaned by testing on primates.

 

[Prolescum]

I'm glad Inferno's given no thrift to Truthisbeyondme's spurious redefinitions of words an English teacher should be very familiar with. In fact, given that he claims to be an English teacher, he will also be aware of his actions.

One wonders what his god thinks of false testimony... *cough*ninth commandment*cough*

 

[Isotelus]

Male penis size isn't correlated with pleasure and neither is female breast size, as far as I'm aware. Granted, I'll take a C-cup over an A-cup any time, but that's personal preference. There are a few hypotheses out there as to why they are the way they are but none of them have enough foundations as of yet so I'll have to lay this aside as "not enough evidence, let's look into it further".

I just wanted to add this as well. I think you are correct in saying that gonad size and secondary sexual characteristics doesn't correlate completely with pleasure (mind you, since we're talking about personal preference, that's just sexual selection at its finest, which is of course one of the many possibilities to explain why our breasts and penises are the way they are).
But primate reproductive anatomy and behaviour also correlate with specific group types. Generally those belonging to polyagmous patrilines have proportionally large penises, and in particular large testes. Chimps may have smaller penises then men, but their testes are roughly twice the size as a human's, due to the fact that they live in multi-male/multi-female groups where females have the option of copulating with numerous partners. Que sperm competition! The varying degrees of sexual dimorphism in primate species are also linked to social dynamics. I think this goes well with the points Andiferous and Anachronous Rex made on this too. We can make good guesses as to the social conditions under which we first evolved by comparing our reproductive morphology and behviours to that of other primates.

I have a few papers on this sort of thing, if you want them at any point. Nice post Inferno!