Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
BULLSHIT. An honest mistake is one thing, but way down here in, what is it, the 150th + post, you've changed your tune. Which is STILL wrong. What a dishonest person!
You still act as though you do not know what a debate is, and that, more anything I have seen yet, shows immaturity, especially as there have been reports that you are quite reasonable and open-minded over the private messaging system. But immaturity is okay; being wrong is okay, and it is even encouraged: that is what a debate room is for: changing our perspectives and opinions. I commend Andrewcgs for his willingness to realize that he was wrong, and to change his opinion. He has done little else to warrant merit, but at the least, he has done that, and it has been more than you have been willing to do as far as real listening goes. So I beg that you please begin to look at the debate forum as a place where changing your ideas is not seen as dishonest in its own sense, but rather as intelligent, adaptive and as showing a willingness to learn. This is not a place to tell everyone about what you believe in -- at least not as a debate forum -- unless you are willing to offer others the same service that you want: attention and careful consideration. Aggravating others does no good, and attacking the fundamental principles of open debate further reduces these posts into nothing more than the antics of a bunch of whiny siblings, picking on the weakest among them. It is a despicable practice, and it is an embarrassment before the great minds that granted us the logic we have to work with today. If we are going to act as though we are in kindergarten, perhaps we should all remind ourselves of the most basic principles of conversation: THINK before you speak: Is it True? Is it Honest? Is it Intelligent? Is it Necessary? Is it Kind? If what you have to say does not meet these criteria, then it is most likely going to lead to post after post just like this one, with hundreds of meaningless comments and replies created by both sides. Whoever moderates, please, seal this post from further comments and replies. This is becoming a spam war from both sides.
You'll find our mod prefers to make such decisions using her own judgment.
I take it you've had a run-in.
Actually, the one who invited me here warned me of it before hand. A pity he doesn't show up very often.
Does he prefer to argue the theist or the atheist? Or the agnostic? We could really use one of them around here. Also, I should at least try to contact the moderator anyway. Do you know the username, or am I not allowed to ask?
Why? A spam war is what it is. Let it be. The fires will die eventually.
As for the person who invited me, I'd prefer talking about that over pm. My username is just Deforres for PM's.
From the behavioral perspective, allowing spam wars to continue reinforces the behaviors that cause them, resulting in more spam wars, and ruining the fora.
On the flip side of the coin, doing so could cause you to gain even worse types of attention. Your action, while well meant, could backfire immensely.
Don't you dare lecture me. I know when someone is justifying and someone is admitting that they are wrong. I know because I have admitted when I was wrong. I've done it very dramatically and demonstratively on this forum. I apologized, and for those who didn't know that I was wrong and why. I clarified it so that they would know.
I pointed out a disingenuine statement. Debate is based on honesty, letting the facts lead to the solution. Justifying is just a form of lying. You have been an apologist since you've been here, and yet you assume authority that you don't have nor deserve.
You are correct, your statement is worthless.
No mercy.
Predicate calculus demonstrates that logic and debate are well to be removed from the debater. Therefore, if a contradiction is made, to 'weasel out of it' is neither crime nor justification, so long as the logic holds. That should not reflect poorly on the debater. If by the rules of predicate calculus it can be shown that an argument has a contradiction that invalidates a point absolutely and the debater who made the claim that was challenged then attempts to 'weasel his way out of it,' then he is necessarily wrong, not necessarily dishonest. And neither he, nor any of his ideas which have not been formally disproven, ought to be insulted. It is insult itself that requires insult, and because I failed to realize this, I have responded to insult with insult. I shall do this no longer. In the spirit of debate, no longer shall I insult whatsoever. That does not mean that I shall cease to be honest. If the truth is ever to be insulting, then I am willing to take the truth, insulting or not. But to gild the truth with unnecessarily insulting language is not in the spirit of true debate, and it is just as immature as any other insult. Therefore, I redact what you saw as reprimand, and I apologize.
"not a wise characteristic trait." I heartily beg to differ.
I have nothing more to say in this conversation
Other than i will hold on to my beliefs which i have done with other conversations like this until somebody is able to explain logically how i am wrong ,which i feel like i has not been done not even close.but i have learned a thing or 2 in this thread and i will continue my journey of reaching a higher percentage of truth.i appreciate the input guys!
Farewell, tovarich.
You won't "reach a higher percentage of truth" until you stop lying to yourself.
My question: since when the hell did the truth become quantifiable by way of percentage?
I think that it's called "probability," and although that's obviously not what Andrewcgs was talking about, I think that it's funny that you chose to say what you did in that way.
Probability is the likely hood of an occurrence , no?
:) The probability that something will occur can be thought of as the likelihood of something becoming true.
That is indeed an interesting thought, and I thank you for sharing it. However, as you noted, that was not what Andrew nor I intended.
Under normal circumstances, when a claim is made, the person who made the claim must prove it. If the proof is weak, then a challenger can explain exactly how. Until you explain completely and exactly, one by one, how each piece of your evidence connects to your conclusion, nobody can respond to you in the way that you are asking them to do.
Probability is based on percentages as you say is not my intention or what is not what i meant to say. i am done explaining you ethier get it or you dont and for mykcob4 who says im lying to myself how can that be when i never claimed my concepts to be true but only as possible and at the very leat to be considered.with your type of thinking we wouldn't have discovered nothing about this universe and would still be living in the stone age.
@Andrewcgs
I am talking about your reluctance to accept good evidence that many have provided to and for you (they did the due diligence you neglected). Then you walked back from your statements, NOT admitting that you were wrong, but instead revising them and letting on as that what you always met. We all saw it, read it. So you are just lying to yourself. As far as you saying your concepts are only a possibility, that is a complete and utter copout. You defended (erringly), you proposal as if it were fact and not the hairbrained idea in the first place.
True we must come up with ideas to progress but we must accept facts as they are, not try and revise the facts to fit the question.
True well lets say the cave man days then with that type thinking smh i swear man this is sad.
Bluster, name call, it doesn't change a damned thing. Your original post has been shredded to pieces and yet you keep embarrassing yourself.
BTW, you really SHOULD download Grammarly. If anyone needed it, you do. A typo is one thing, but MAN, your post are atrocious! Makes me wonder if you made it passed the 3rd grade.
I think you mean "past the 3rd grade."
Okay ! I am reposting Andrewcgs' original assertion here. I do not think this is about probabilities. He makes a claim about reality :
"The 2 most popular beliefs on this planet is god which always existed and the big bang which came from nothing. what those 2 concepts have in common is they dont have creators they are self created and they both needed absolutely nothing to be created.which one is right is not important but agreeing that what i just explained is what both concepts have in common and they both lead to a bigger answer.
The bigger answer is that based on both theorys there has to be different laws/rules,dimensions realms were one of those theorys would have to be true. so we got it down to 2 answers i would say 90% of the world believes or not but 2 answers it could possibly be we should agree on what they have in common and agree that both theorys lead to different universal laws were up could be down, or a whole universe could be made of water,ice,fire or where time and space dont exist or works faster or slower different than our realm of reality. but even if you disagree i hope you enjoy my thoughts and think deeply about the perspective"
Paragraph one - The claim is made the Big Bang came from nothing. Many of us have contested this. We have asked Andrewcgs to support this. He has not. Therefore the counter claim that an eternal creator and a physical universe have nothing in common holds.
Paragraph two - We can assert that this universe has physical laws. It is safe to assert that another physical universe may have different physical laws. Again, we are left to argue how a mythical being that lives by whatever rules the claimant can imagine and a universe of physical matter and laws have any thing in common.
Exactly so my original post was about the 2 most popular beliefs on this planet ,which i have not changed my stance on but added a 3 opinion of absolutely nothing and nothing actually existing. I did not revise the facts or switch sides but simply added a 3 option of low possibility. I was focused on the 2 beliefs and one of them is believed by the billions and the other by millions as i stated pretty much makes up 90 percent of the population 9/10 believe in one of those concepts. I dont think too many people would agree that there is absolutely nothing and what we are experiencing isn't real. so i think its highly likely that one of those 2 concepts is true which is why i say we got it down to 2 answers. I didn't include the 3rd option because i dont think its likely but possible. mykcob4 You cannot prove me wrong when i only state this as possible even if its a 1% chance or lower I would still be right. All types of unprobability has come true us existing on this planet or us existing at all is unlikely. Your comprehension skills on this concept has proven to be weak and not in deep thought but on the surface of knowledge!
Chimp 3 i have stated many times that if this universe did not come from nothing then it ethier always existed or does not exist at all which fits the 3 possible origins that i have explained.chimp 3. do you guys think its one of the 3?
Pages