You may have noticed that those in control have a tendency to do whatever it takes to remain in control. Is that wise? Sure, if you’re self interested. — praxis
I will prove that Atheism and its associated belief systems are not logical. — 3017amen
Large projects -- whether it's the power or transportation infrastructure or going to war -- cannot be worked on if people are merely self-governing. It's in the nature of such large projects that they require a certain type of hierarchical organization in order to be carried out. Modern life is based around such large projects. There's a limit to how much technological and logistic complexity self-governing people can carry out. A generous estimate seems to be a Stone Age lifestyle.If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not. — Fooloso4
I don't think that this is the whole of the story. If people could be self-governing the need for government would be minimal, but they are not. — Fooloso4
The conceptual separation of church/state apparently dates back to at least Seneca. — praxis
Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward. — praxis
Religious life doesn't require moral development at all ... — praxis
Seneca was a stoic who understood that virtue could be developed in the pursuit of well-being or eudaemonia, and not out of obedience to an authority or for some kind of postmortem reward.
— praxis
Right, but the common man is not a stoic philosopher. — Fooloso4
It has long been demonstrated to be inconsistent, ambiguous, and nonsensical. And it has failed every single time it was put into practice. — Apollodorus
Once again I will prove that your Atheism and its associated belief systems are not logical. To that end, here's one definition of Atheism, does this describe your belief accurately?
Atheism: a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. — 3017amen
To further clarify the object of our dispute, consider:↪3017amen No, but that will suffice for ... weak/negative atheism on my list of coherent positions for me to defend. — 180 Proof
By 'creator' I understand an entity that transcends its creation in logical anteriority and is ontological separate from its creation (whether it intervenes (immanently or transcendently) or does not intervene in its creation).(A) Creator Only (e.g. deism; pan-en-deism)
(B) Intervener Only (e.g. animism; paganism)
(C) both Creator and Intervener (e.g. poly/heno/mono-THEISM; pan-THEISM; pan-en-THEISM)
(D) neither Creator nor Intervener (e.g. a-cosmism, pan-deism)
Not all theistic concepts per say, but an opposition to belief in gods/gods as defined by the monotheist religions.
It’s what people like Amen3017 are talking about when they think they are talking about atheism. — DingoJones
And whatever substance lies in your clams of inconsistency, ambiguity, and nonsense, first, that's not what people want, so I question, "long been demonstrated," and second, the same criticisms can be leveled at just about any political system. — tim wood
I don't question the claim that test-tube Marxism doesn't pass an academician's close scrutiny. — tim wood
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they are different? I would prefer you reserve your answer for the debate - and it's gratifying, to me at least, to see the mutuality of spirit and interest in this debate.In other words, and in that sense, the A-theist and the Fundy are no different. — 3017amen
Very good. Have you got an Admin to set up our debate space and found a member to moderate the debate who's to your liking? Banno works for me. Who moderates (within reason!) is not by a deal breaker for me though. (Maybe we can briefly discuss in PMs members we each object to in this role?)I will prove that your A-theism is not logical. But instead, is based on something else...like emotion or some other irrelevant cognitive, philosophical, psychological, or existential phenomena, etc, etc.... — 3017amen
This seems much clearer to me. What do you say, 3017amen?Resolved, That atheism is not logical. For, 3017. Opposed, 180. — tim wood
Since you will taking down "a-theism", I will present an argument for this moving target to begin the debate, right? And you will defeat my argument in turn? And so on for a limited(?) number of counters and then summations in a final post by each of us (apparently with you getting the last word :sweat: )?
Is that what you have in mind or something else? — 180 Proof
We don't need "objective", even neutral, just scrupulously FAIR. Any member with a reputation for fairness and/or the demonstrated maturity we can reasonably expect to be fair will suffice.to find an objective party may be difficult... — 3017amen
If we have someone moderate, it will his or her role to delete (or red flag) ad hominems, strawmen, and such as well as decide (by agreed on rules) who forfeits and thereby who prevails by forfeit. And, my friend, check Google & wiki: insults are fair game in debates but ad hominem fallacies are not. I suggest you learn the difference and stop whining that my insults have been ad hominems when they have not. Anyway, at any rate, insults are almost always bad form with audiences so I won't go for the cheap laughs just to score points. I take debates even more serious than I do free-for-all forum discussions. By all means though, you go first and give me the last word, sir. I'll gladly accomodate you. :up: :smirk: — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.