The ones that disappear

Debate Room
101

Why is love a sufficient reason to believe in a deity, that you can offer neither objective evidence nor rational argument for?

Nobody has claimed the universe needs justice, the claim makes no sense since justice is a subjective notion that has evolved from sentient life. Morality and a sense of what is just are are necessary requirements for animals that evolved to live in societal groups. It adds a survival benefit, not least by adding societal cohesion. Since humans have evolved to live as societal animals, they thus possess a subjective sense of justice and morality, contemporary notions of justice help to make life more bearable, and to provide societal cohesion, it’s precursors can clearly be seen in our evolved past, and in other evolved species.

1 Like
102

[quote]@Sid, from your list of five things stolen from theists, I asked about love. Now I’ll ask about justice.

What do you think justice is? (Don’t throw me a dictionary, tell me what you think.)
Please don’t walk over this question, Sid.
[/quote]

As I said before Love is sufficient for me to crack the egg and if one is sufficient then the rest fall in line .
However I will answer your question .
Why does a blind indifferent universe need justice ?
If you say it doesn’t then why do you ?

As a moderator, I have been more than patient with you. I will direct you to answer @CyberLN question directly.

This is a warning.:warning:

Reread what was written. Answer the question honestly.

3 Likes
103

This will be interesting… Not an ounce of honesty in the guy.

1 Like
104

If you think, @Sid, that this is an answer to the question I asked then I must conclude that you are either purposely deflecting or that you lack the intellectual ability to read/understand language.
It was actually a pretty simple question.

If you have any interest in further participation in discussions here, I’d suggest you heed the warning @Whitefire13 gave and provide an appropriate answer to the question asked.

4 Likes
105

Ahem…

@sid, can you explain why you think love is a reason to believe in a deity?

Just saying but this question is weeks old now…and nary a word in explanation offered.

1 Like
106

Right now Sheldon, he needs to focus on answering @CyberLN

I need to determine his level of honesty.

1 Like
107

The universe is not lifeless, dear oh dear how many times?

1 Like
108

I tested his posts for you, :innocent: here are the results:

honesty meter

2 Likes
109

Apparently @Sid has forgotten that I dealt with his tripe about “theistic values” in this previous post. A post he didn’t even acknowledge the existence of when I posed it.

He is also apparently unaware of the fact that I devoted an entire thread to the dishonesty of “design” apologetics here.

2 Likes
110

Sid is no more interested in discussing anything on the site than I am in drinking bleach. He needs to go to the record shop for repairs.

1 Like
111

Ever so glad to hear you’re not interested in drinking bleach. :wink:

112

Again, love is simply an emergent emotion. You could easily replace love with, doubt or fear… melancholy… just because you don’t understand how it arises, that doesn’t invoke a god.

This god has still not been demonstrated to exist empirically, so your argument is akin to saying, “As I said before, Confusion is sufficient for me to crack the egg… (and then infer) that is enough for me to believe it was brought about by a pan dimensional space hopper!”

It doesn’t, people need or better said, want justice… why? Because its better for the majority/collective good.

If Jupiter gets hit by a rogue comet, there is no intergalactic judiciary that will meet out retribution against the rock for hurting the planet.

113

Do you have any idea at all how much chocolate syrup you have to add to a glass of bleach to make it potable? I’ll stick to coconut juice and mangos.

114

@Sid. (There is a method behind his madness.)

image
image843×820 111 KB

It makes perfect sense to him.

3 Likes
115

Back in the day (yeah, I’m old), when I used to debate every day online … they (the theists) had something called FABNAQs (Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions) that they used to throw at us, blithely ignorant of the fact that those questions had been answered and debunked time after time after time … ad nauseum. There were also specific ways that theists debated … I should really write an article for my website on that but I’m incredibly lazy these days.

There were whole sites dedicated to those answers and, over time, I have realised that the way theists debate is exactly the same way everyone with an unsupportable view debates. I’ve been a computer freak for something like forty years, worked in IT and, because of it, something of a Windows fan. It hit me after debating OS merits with some Linux guys and then some Apple guys and I realised the very same techniques (and often variations on the same arguments) were used. Don’t get me wrong, although very Windows oriented, I don’t think any OS rules, they are all competent, all have strengths and weaknesses, it just interested me.

Other claims use the same techniques.

No, I don’t think most learn from it… indeed, in many cases, I think the same theists will go elsewhere and use the very same arguments that were trashed here or wherever, and use them elsewhere. I think that’s part of the “Lying For Jesus” mentality.

2 Likes
116

They say 50% of the population thinks they are smarter than average. That means the other 50% is gullible as hell. Those arguments work. They probably work about 50% of the time. They just don’t work on this side of the mean. LOL

1 Like
117

A guide to the most used common logical fallacies.

This is a pretty good site, and gives very simple definitions of the fallacies, and goes on to explain why they represent weak or poor reasoning, beyond the fact that using such fallacies is by definition irrational, a word many people use without fully understanding that it can mean an argument or claim is not in accordance with the principles of logic.

If you scroll down you will see an appeal to emotions fallacy. Now it’s important to note that the “use of emotions in-and-of-itself is not fallacious, as they can be relevant to an argument. It’s only fallacious when feelings are used instead of facts as evidence that something is true or false.”

As in @Sid’s claim that love is a reason to believe in a deity, offered without a shred of objective evidence or a single word of explanation. Worth noting here that “if someone else is appealing to your emotions, consider that it might not be a deliberate attempt to manipulate your reasoning. Sometimes they’re a reflection of the emotions of the person making the argument.”

NB The bottom line is that arguments should be supported by evidence – and emotions aren’t evidence.

Further down you will see an argument from ignorance fallacy, or an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, this can also be called an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Put simply this fallacy is the claim that “something must be true because we don’t know that it isn’t. A foundation of critical thinking is that claims require evidence, and claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. A lack of evidence simply demonstrates our ignorance, and is not a reason to believe.”

I don’t need to over egg this one, as @Sid has done all the heavy lifting for us here, and used it over and over from the very first, indeed his entire spiel has been based on this fallacy from the very first.

"This fallacy is commonly used by science deniers, pseudoscience proponents, conspiracy theorists, and believers in the supernatural "

The site goes on: “The argument from ignorance is fallacious because when we don’t know, we simply don’t know! A more rational response is to maintain a healthy level of skepticism and demand sufficient evidence before accepting a claim. This fallacy is frequently committed alongside the burden of proof fallacy , which is when someone makes a claim without evidence then demands their opponent disprove their claim. They then claim their belief is true because you can’t disprove it.”

It goes on with this: " If someone is unfamiliar with critical thinking, they may not understand the importance of evidence. Kindly remind them that claims require evidence. And if they demand that you disprove their claim, remind them that they bear the burden of proof."

That’s enough for now, enough to sink pretty every word @Sid has said as demonstrably irrational. In case he has any doubts this is why I remain dubious about his claims and arguments, and thus remain disbelieving.

2 Likes
118

No.

This isn’t logical, it is a leveling the playing field fallacy.

Look, Sid.

Why do you presume you are right, even when presented with evidence against your position?

I would rather talk to you about how we can reach conclusions, than this pointless (in this instance) tirade of demonstrating you to be wrong.

This tactic is obviously not progressing either sides standing.

Perhaps for a start, we could discuss only logical fallacies, I and I’m sure others here, would happily talk you through the most commonly applied fallacies?

For a crude analogy of the situation here, I could say that it is like a role playing game, when you play such games, you often find yourself in a particularly difficult boss battle.

The difficulty of the boss, is often determined by how much ground work the player has endured to get their character up to strength.

For example in the game Elden ring, one of the initial area bosses is a large Golden knight astride a powerful steed, this knight is aptly named ‘Tree Sentinel’ due to the games lore.

The developers of the game, placed this Boss right outside the building you start the game.

They did this, for a specific purpose.

To teach new players, that rushing in and attacking the first big enemy you see, isn’t always a good idea.

This boss, caused many players to quit the game, believing it to be far too difficult.

The lesson to be learned, is that your character needs strengthening, you need to evade the boss and go and find weaker enemies in the game, to gain expeirence points from, which will help supplement your characters strength, unlocking new abilities, new armour and weapons, and most importantly, the amount of damage your character can receive and dish out.

Once your character is stronger, you can then approach the ‘Tree sentinel’ and smite vengeance on him with much greater ease.

The point I am trying to make with this analogy, is that you are here on a forum, filled with educated minds that have a capacity for reason and intellectually honesty, that far outweighs your own.

I do not mean this as an insult, as we all start this game without the skill sets required to determine which way is up or down, let alone to take on ‘tree sentinels.’

We were all in your shoes at one point or another.

So, maybe it is time to better equip your character, do those side quests, grind out the task of killing those weaker enemies.

In my personal opinion, one of the most crucial side quests for defeating a tree sentinel, would be to learn logical fallacies, to study then and then begin to apply this new found knowledge.

None of us here have completed the ‘game’ far from it, but we are certainly many bosses ahead of you, and have a wealth of EXP points, that far exceeds that of your own, or that of the starter ‘tree sentinel.’

So, as an experienced player of elden ring, may be summoned into a beginners realm to assist them.

Would you instead of putting down a red invader mark, but down a golden mark and call in an ally?

We can take you to the starter caves, and show you the most efficient path for gaining EXP for your character to be strong enough to stand up to a whole army of ‘tree sentinels.’

What say you?

Will you put aside your differences and apply yourself in an intellectual honesty manner?

Kind regards, Wily cat.

2 Likes
119

Here you go , as if you didn’t know .
Justice is a human perception on what it considers to be fair and just and what it deems to be a suitable response to perceived injustice .
That’s only my opinion of course , others may have a different point of view .
So why does a lifeless indifferent universe need justice ?

1 Like
120

It doesn’t. If you run across a universe like that you probably won’t find any justice. What’s your point?

2 Likes