- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Recent Content
-
Are miracles real?
It amazes me that anybody here thinks that their opinion of someone else matters at all. What f****** windbags.
-
Trump and his recent endeavors.
I think that Donald Trump will go down in history as the greatest ever president of the USA, or at least the most consequential one since Abraham Lincoln.
-
Dismantling the Dept of Education; good or bad?
@polytheistwitch
Instead, we have a self serving socialist bureaucracy pushing all kinds of wacky ideas onto children like a male an be a female if he just wants to be one. Personally, even though I am an atheist myself, I consider most Christians to be a lot more sane than the socialists. Much nicer people too. -
Dismantling the Dept of Education; good or bad?
Australia comprises six states and two "territories". It has no Federal education bureaucracy and does not need one. The US Federal Education Department sounds like just another expensive and un needed make work project to give employment to for left wing lunatics. -
DOGE is driving us into the poorhouse.. Du*de!
The USA is 27 trillion dollars in dept and at the present rate set by the free spending Biden administration, that dept is increasing by 1 trillion dollars every 100 days. Either the USA gets it's finances in order or it will go bankrupt and it will not have the money to pay for pensions, medical procedures, or any other welfare. As Elon Musk stated unequivocally, "failure is not an option." -
Are miracles real?
It amazes me that anybody here thinks that their opinion of someone else matters at all. What f****** windbags. -
Are miracles real?
Factfinder said:@MayCaesar
I respect Ricky and the witch more than the lying one. At least they believe what they post and believe their perspective doctrines in defense of their tomfoolery. This clown thinks he's clever with his passive aggressive retreats and concedes that there are parts of the bible he don't believe cause theologians told him so. Reminds me of the weasel characters you always hope dies in disaster movies.
It makes me wonder, even on the things I do agree with him about. I, like you've suggested gave him the benefit of the doubt at times that he actually scrutinized those positions? I can't say with confidence he has. In the spirit of transparency I don't generally fact check people I agree with as much as I should. Usually cause I'm aware of my own knowledge and why I hold the opinions I do so if nothing anyone says that I agree with raises a red flag, well I casually accept it at that point. Maybe have to reexamine what causes skepticism and what should cause it? Doesn't hurt to add junctures of reevaluation anyway do to new data continually being immersed in the collective knowledge that we have available to us.I think that this guy has both extremely low intellect and complete lack of honesty. Not much else to say.Wanted to expand a bit on your second paragraph. Personally, I have always been more interested in people's reasoning than in their conclusions, and I would rather hang out with someone who I disagree with on everything, but who offers interesting arguments in support of his position - than someone who I agree with on everything, but whose positions will crumble the moment I decide to play devil's advocate and push against them a bit. Agreeing with someone who arrives at the same conclusions as me, but through a faulty reasoning, does not make me feel like we have much in common.One memorable example of this was the early 2020, when I was reading in parallel Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". I had read a lot about Rand and even tried reading her "Atlas Shrugged", and I was familiar with Hayek's views and some of his articles - it was my expectation that I would find their books equally interesting and resonating with my views. What I found, however, was that Hayek's book was an intellectual feast, with very deep and thought-provoking arguments conclusions of some of which I had not shared, but could not refute the reasoning - I, in fact, had to reread a few sections multiple times to fully understand his take... While Rand's book read like a yellow press opinion piece, with regular logical fallacies, unjustified jumps to conclusions, endless "it is obvious that..." shenanigans. It was great to read both at the same time, as the contrast between the two books was phenomenal. And, as could be expected, the audiences of said books also different significantly: my online discussions with proponents of Hayek were full of difficult mental experiments and thought-provoking questions, while discussions with Objectivists would result in them telling me how brainwashed I was for not blindly accepting Rand's claims - and 90% of their arguments would just be citations of her, as if "Rand said X" was a sufficient argument to conclude that X is true.In the end, I realized that, despite my differences with Hayek on many conclusions and extremely large overlap of my conclusions with Rand's, I actually had much more in common with Hayek than her. Me and Hayek were both interested in figuring out the real mechanisms driving human societies, and in our search we would arrive at different models, but we were on the same path of truth-seeking - while Rand was a dogmatic thinker who backwards justified her views that were chiefly determined by her emotional makeup.I have had a lot of such experiences in my life, enough to conclude that similarity in views does not at all imply similarity in thinking. As you said, when someone disagrees with absolutely everything you say, then, most likely, something is off here - but the converse is not true, and if someone agrees with absolutely everything you say, then, in fact, that can indicate that something is off. It might, for instance, mean that the person is a people-pleaser who does not really strongly held positions and just says whatever is convenient at the moment.If we all think independently, then we are bound to arrive at different conclusions: there should be some overlap, and some divergence. Too much overlap indicates either presence of the groupthink, or some kind of dishonesty - and too little overlap indicates craziness of, at least, one of the individuals.I actually like asking this question when I meet someone for the first time and feel that I want to become friends with them: "Tell me an opinion you hold that most people find unacceptable". If you do not have such an opinion, then you probably are not an independent thinker.
-
Are miracles real?
@MayCaesar
I respect Ricky and the witch more than the lying one. At least they believe what they post and believe their perspective doctrines in defense of their tomfoolery. This clown thinks he's clever with his passive aggressive retreats and concedes that there are parts of the bible he don't believe cause theologians told him so. Reminds me of the weasel characters you always hope dies in disaster movies.
It makes me wonder, even on the things I do agree with him about. I, like you've suggested gave him the benefit of the doubt at times that he actually scrutinized those positions? I can't say with confidence he has. In the spirit of transparency I don't generally fact check people I agree with as much as I should. Usually cause I'm aware of my own knowledge and why I hold the opinions I do so if nothing anyone says that I agree with raises a red flag, well I casually accept it at that point. Maybe have to reexamine what causes skepticism and what should cause it? Doesn't hurt to add junctures of reevaluation anyway do to new data continually being immersed in the collective knowledge that we have available to us.
-
RickeyHoltsclaw's Men's Bible Study Group in how to RUN AWAY From Disturbing Bible Passages!
@just_sayin
I played along with your false premise and addressed your accusations as if God had indeed called for the killing of babies and infants. Here is that portion of my response to you:
This remark supports my truthful observation of your biblical illiteracy. Ever wish your god didn't require you to be self willed stoopid? Just an observation. Not meant to be an insult like you like to do on purpose.
Your bogus answers plays into my hands as truth always works out that way it seems. Only your pride prevents you from seeing the truth. You have eyes to see but you do not see. It is said it's childish to think an imaginary character has attributes independent of reality and your slow mind plays the same broken record. I say your eld god is evil for killing and ordering the killing of innocent babies and foretell your excuses based in indoctrination and not reality or rational thinking and you fulfill my prophesy.
You failed at manipulating perplexity to support your arguments as the answers given reflect the same illogical responses to the reality that your elf god, if it existed would be the personification of evil.
Also you haven't demonstrated it (your fairytale elf god) can exist, much less does so.
Then assigning special privileges to it arbitrarily when facts and reality debunks your indoctrinate points. Only a fearful and insecure person can see justice in the execution of babies for what supposedly the adults did to anger a petulant immature child like god throwing fits over not being liked or people not telling the Hebrews it's okay to rape pillage and burn their people since their fictious god says it's just, solely cause it likes playing god.
Why do you feel the need to lie if your faith is true and valid? If you knew your bible you would know for a fact I made no false premises, your god wanted Saul to kill infants and all the livestock, everything and your elf god was unhappy with Saul for not doing so, Now you can call god's word (elf book) a liar and it wouldn't be the first time you admitted not believing scripture, but you can't call me one without that making you the li*ar. Your god has both committed genocidal acts and has ordered them repeatedly.
Actually, I addressed your accusations (see https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/205513/#Comment_205513).
You posted but you didn't address what I said, you dismissed it and posted the same old debunked crap. You run from the observations made above, you run from explaining how you rationally justify killing babies for such a meaningless term as "sins" of supposedly evil people when your god created evil and bragged about it in Isaiah 45:7.
You ran from the entire chapter of 1 Samuel 15 cause it proves your "battle cry" "god doesn't really mean what the bible says" excuse WRONG. So your fall back position is the predictable arbitrary excuse god can murder babies, people for picking up sticks, or who they had sex with or not worshipping it, cause it's god in your purposely projected foolishness. Again an observation based on your refuted broken record responses that doesn't address issues or logic head on. So yes, I've only heard crickets coming from you on this specific issue and others and anyone with critical thought capability will arrive at a similar conclusion.
You probably didn't read your ai post (you've been busted a lot for headline grabbing even if you lie and say you don't do that) but the silly notion of god's supposed long suffering is just that, silly as anything else in elf god mythology, thus demonstrating it so far to be worthless myth. If your god were truly long suffering it would be logical to assume he'd wait at least a few million years or so to get people to be his worshippers before wiping them out, infants and all for being too clever to fall for magic fairy land mythology the first time. All because it regretted what it had created; not just wait a few short generational cycles against the backdrop of itself existing (ROLMAO) eternally as that points to its tendency to throw temper tantrums, not to being long suffering. I'm laughing cause you use that same pretense when logic debunks your creation myths and ignorant references to science to say (god did it) while pretending you known something pertinent.
Point being you wouldn't look so foolish if you begin to adopt critical thought processes and didn't rely on what others brainwashed you with; and of course if you actually read your own sourced material, what people say, and addressed the concerns with your own insight as opposed to relying on your insecure need to point to what you think are authorities in the first place. That would help you not look like the court jester as well. Just good advice from your friendly neighborhood atheist.
-
Those pesky borders..
@jack
It's not the borders it's the people that hoard food for profit. But even if they didn't then if they put the work in and invest in food production then they should be able to make a profit for their efforts. So the issue really isn't borders in my opinion it's human relations that cause starvation. How does one approach that problem in a realistic way? There is plenty of food and the land doesn't recognize borders anyway, it's the people on the land that produces the food. I wasn't born to support you and you weren't born to support me, at what point do individuals take responsibility for themselves? Life isn't fair, okay that is true but if you want to live you must eat, fairness of life or the lack there of changes nothing. Yeah the issue isn't about borders, its about people, attitudes and actions or inactions in some cases. Imagine how well off Mexico could be if the government wasn't notoriously corrupt. Then multiply that around the world and you see it's not an abstract concept of borders that's the problem, it's the way we treat one another that is the problem.
