User talk:The Debater

Hello! Welcome to my talk page! If you would, please vote in the Homemade Polls on my User page. Thanks so much!--The Debater (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, The Debater! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)

Debate 'er? I hardly know 'er!Shall we go, you and I while we can/Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds? 16:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the help!--The Debater (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This page has just been archived.--The Debater (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Debate: Which Star Trek series was the best

I am willing to debate this matter on your behalf as I've seen them all. Even the cartoons. Sophie^Wilder 20:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not much of a debate. TNG is hands down the best. Three words Jean Luc Picard. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Three other words: Wesley sodding Crusher. Sophie^Wilder 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I will admit bias in that I only conider Gene Roddenberry Star Trek to be "real" Star Trek. Everything else is sort of like the EU of Star Wars. And again, just personal bias, I think of Picard as awesome enough to make up for a multitude of sins, even the train wreck that was Wesley Crusher. So TNG>TOS and everything else is just meh. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 21:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I appoint you executive officer in charge of radishes. Sophie^Wilder 21:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite.

1. The original movie series
2. The Next Generation (TV series)
3. The original TV series
4. The new/alternate universe movie series (based on the 2009 movie & the extended trailer for the forthcoming one)
5. Voyager
6. Deep Space Nine
7. Next Generation related movies
8. The Animated Series
9. Novels, comic books, video games, fan fiction, etc.
10. And finally, Enterprise

ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

^I can agree to this. Wrath of Khan was amazing. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't really see how you could rank them like this. The best of Enterprise still shits and pisses on the worst of TNG, and Voyager is so varied that it would have episodes competing as strong contenders for both the top and bottom spots. Consider that the "original movie series" also includes all the odd-numbered ones, too. ^moral 15:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That other thing

My take:

1. The Empire Strikes Back
2. A New Hope
3. All the rest are shit.

She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 22:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The one with the Ewoks had a lot of shark-jumping in it, and a kitschy feel-good wrap-up. Pot-boiler, sez I. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What was the one with Pricess Leia and Jabba the Hutt? I thought that was good. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think of Return of the Jedi as one of the most frightening endings. Now you have a huge intergalactic empire (who was able to hold its shit together even without a Death Star), with its leadership gone. What happens next is what happens whenever a dictator dies: power struggle. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Interglactic empire", how easily that trips off the tongue. Генгис^pillaging 22:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

[ec] It had a nice start, with the action in and around Jabba's lair, but the finish on the moon of Endor was a little too glib and furry for my liking, with the disembodied Obi-wan, Anakin and Yoda watching the party from above. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

at least it didn't have Jar Jar Binks in it. Sophie^Wilder 13:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am still waiting.

I asked you to pick a resolution and a position so that we could engage in a debate. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 13:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"This house proposes that there is no God, and that deities were invented by people to cover their ignorance." Your move. Sophie^Wilder 14:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sophie, but I'm waiting for this guy to propose a topic/position of his choice. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 14:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Pow, been a little busy as you can tell (posts above). If you will, could you help me out in proving God to these people (that is, if you are a believer). I would seriously appreciate it. Then I will debate with you. Sounds like a deal?--The Debater (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am (as of not long ago...) a person who believes in God. I am also a person who understands that belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a deeply personal affair, and it doesn't really do anyone any good to try to convince them that their deeply-held views on the topic are wrong one way or the other. I am also a person who understands that belief in the holy or the divine, however one chooses to understand such a concept, is something that can't be "proven," in the way that you are trying to prove it. It's a question of faith and of using one's own human capacities as a way to try to understand that which is ultimately impossible to understand except in an extremely limited, subjective and personal way. So I'm afraid I cannot help you. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Why not at least attempt? Isn't that why most Churches/religions/believers evangelize? I think that it would be most friend-like to help someone in need (especially when they are doing what your own religious body tells you to do). Please, help me out?--The Debater (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not attempt? Because I am not so vain as to believe that my approach to understanding God--or even to positing the existence of God-- is any more valid than anyone else's. Because I understand that what works for me won't necessarily work for that guy, and I try to respect that guy enough to not tell him that he's wrong about something I can only barely understand myself. And lots of faith traditions don't evangelize -- the Jews, being the most relevant example in the Western tradition. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 14:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

And why do you think that no one is becoming Jewish? A debate does not have to be about convincing the other side, but it does bring out the best of both sides. That is why I am doing this. Will you reconsider?--The Debater (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the assertion that "nobody is becoming Jewish" -- lots of babies born into Jewish families seem to become Jewish. As for people not converting into Judaism, well, I'm not a Jew, so I'm not really invested in that question, and if the Jews don't want to take on outsiders, (some will, some won't, or make it extremely difficult to do so), that's none of my concern. I'm also not really invested in having people believe what I believe in the way that I believe it, except in so far as I hope that people approach these sorts of questions with an open mind/spirit and find a way to think about what works for them on their own terms. And it has been my experience that these debates tend to bring out the worst of both sides, with people entrenching themselves in positions from which no consensus is possible (two extremes being: Jesus as I understand him is the only way to salvation./People who believe in God are mentally ill). If people want to have a conversation about the divine and what it means to them, great. But framing that conversation as a "debate" that somebody "wins" by "proving" what is ultimately unproveable? No thanks. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A Serious Question

I always wonder, with users like you, what your motives are for posting here. You are not raising any points that haven't been refuted a thousand times before (many of which are listed here) Are you thinking that, somehow, you will lead us to godliness? In which case I suggest you brush up on your debating skills. Or do you just enjoy stirring things up a bit - or what is often called "trolling"?

The thing is, we, as a community, take our beliefs quite seriously. We've mostly thought through the big issues. When you then dismiss our stance on religion as "wishing to avoid the consequences of our actions" this is very belittling and deeply insulting. If you wish to debate here, then we've got no problem with that (in contrast with a certain other wiki where dissenting voices are banned and the evidence burnt). What I would ask is that you leave your preconceptions at the door. Try, for one moment, to realise that neither atheist, not liberal, equals evil, misguided, or even wrong.

In particular, can I ask that you avoid the following

• You cannot be moral without God. This is seriously insulting. Think about it. You're calling me amoral at best and immoral at worst. Those are serious charges you're making against a person you have never met
• Without religion one has something missing from one's life. Again, you may believe this but stating it as fact - you don't know me and you are not in a position to know what I do, or don't, have missing

There are plenty of others but those will do for the moment. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My friend, there is only one truth. Whether there is a God or isn't is not a matter of perspective. As far as their being something immoral about any one person or group of people, that would be stereotyping. I will try harder to avoid that and i'm sorry for any stereotypical behavior that I have shown. It does seem however, that many atheists ARE atheists so that they can justify worldliness and sin. My purpose of discussing such issues as these (even though they have been discussed before) has been stated. A debate such as this brings out the best of each point of view by eliminating lies and misconceptions. Just as you take your own beliefs seriously, I, and all who believe in a just God, take ours seriously. The debate decides the winner and loser. One problem I have with this debate is that I can't keep up. I need some backup for my opinion. Methods such as marching around Jericho and yelling will not work here. I am totally outnumbered at this organization, yet I know that there are so many people who believe exactly what I do. They need to speak up, and give out a helping hand. I'm sorry for any stereotypical language I have used, but again, there is only one truth. In order for this to be, someone must be wrong. Disagreeing in peace is totally fine, but debates like these tend to be very productive.--The Debater (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It does seem however, that many atheists ARE atheists so that they can justify worldliness and sin. - there's mistake #1. It might seem that way to you, possibly because that's the way you want it to seem, but I know lot's of atheists and not one of them is an atheist for that reason. I don't believe in your god for the same reason I don't believe in Thor, or Odin, or Zeus, or Ra, or any of the many ways people have tried to portray their particular perception. There is no reason to believe that the Abrahamic god is any more "real"" than those I have listed.

You say that there is only one truth. We immediately hit a problem there - you appear to feel that you "know" that truth and you have implied that any who don't see it your way are blind. I can't help feeling that this is a trifle arrogant of you. I tend to limit truth to that which is demonstrable and repeatable. Sure, this raises many issues when you get to matters like ethics but I note from history, even the history of gods chosen people, that ethics tends to be cultural and mutable. What is anathema one day is perfectly acceptable the next and vice versa. To give a rather trivial example, when the great Christian leader, Paul, wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:34 that women should be silent in churches I'm sure this was fine. It seems a shade sexist nowadays. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Most atheists are thaeists for the simple reason that they don't believe in God. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a completely respectable position. But you argue that "many atheists ARE atheists so that they can justify worldliness and sin." I'm not sure I follow your logic here. It assumes a particular relationship between atheism, worldliness, and sin. But many Christians are worldly and sinful. What's the relationship between their belief and their character/behavior? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if you can demonstrate that there is a creator (or at least win a popular vote on the topic), none of the other stuff about morality, Jesus, the Bible, etc. necessarily follows from that. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not say that I KNOW THE TRUTH and everyone who doesn't believe what I do IS WRONG. I'm saying that there is ONLY ONE TRUTH, therefore, either I or you are wrong. This will never be proved by one side to convert the other side, but when one sees the logic of the other side, he MAY make a personal opinion change. All that either of us can do is state the logic of our points of view. You say "YOUR" God, but what i'm trying to prove is A God. If you believe that all religions are not praying to the SAME God, that is your own opinion. I do not hold this. As far as the worldliness of some atheists, all i'm saying is that SOME atheists use their position to justify their own actions. You can debate whether there are more evil God-believers or atheists but I want to stay away from that subject. Yes, many Christians do evil things. They sin. Sin is wrong. It is not a social man-made rule that people don't sin. Someone can sin without effecting any other human. We humans know that sin is bad because it is engraved into our nature. Who or what made our nature? Where did it come from? Atheists cannot answer these questions. See what I am doing... I am demonstrating the logic of my point of view... You should do this as well to show why you believe your opinion. Here, I am proving the existence of God. If you already believe in God, we can discuss the Christian perspective of God in another debate.--The Debater (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sin is wrong. OK, but how do you define sin? Let's take slavery. Now it is quite clear that, in the modern world, slavery is completely abhorrent. However, it's quite cool in old testament days. In fact the bible has rules about selling your daughter. Note that the rule is not "do not do this, it's about as bad as it gets." No, the rule is that she's not to get the same treatment as the guys. The thing is that, in the past two thousand years the feelings about slavery have changed. What was perfectly fine back then is now about as bad as it gets. Quite clearly right and wrong change. Then, of course, we have that old fave, about stoning girls who are not virgins. Back then, bring out the rocks, nowadays, maybe not so much, whatever your feelings on premarital sex. Society changes, and with it the definition of good and bad, right and wrong.

So, there may be "only one truth" but, when it comes to morality, there may not even be that.

Here's another conundrum. When does life begin? At conception, I hear you cry, but that does not come in any way or form from the bible. I defy you to quote a passage that supports that view. No, that's just an easy shortcut, the real answer is far more complex and convoluted and, quite frankly, there is no one answer that will cover all eventualities. Every answer you choose leads to absurdities. The one thing I do know is that whomever believes they know "the only one truth" on that one either hasn't got a clue or has an axe to grind.

On a slightly different matter, you ask "who made our nature" and state (on very dubious grounds) that atheists cannot answer that question. Well, first of all, I can answer that question, or at least have a pretty good stab at it - it's called evolution mixed with game theory - and secondly, you seem to want to leap from "atheists cannot answer that question" to theists can. Well, maybe they can but that doesn't mean they're right. Beware the god of the gaps. So, you're not presenting "the logic of your view", your saying (incorrectly) that atheists can't explain, therefore god. That is not logic. The logical reason to be "good" is that it has been shown to have positive survival traits, not because I'm scared of some big bad guy in the sky about whom nobody can agree. Cold, but there you have it. Innocent Bystander (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

oh, and whilst on the subject of biblical morality, check out Numbers 31 where god doesn't muck around. At the end of the battle god, through Moses, demands complete ethnic cleansing. Everyone, man, woman and child, is to be killed, except, and this is a beaut, virgin girls are to be "kept alive for themselves". One can only guess what they soldiers would want with all those virgins. Kinda puts Joe Stalin to shame in the old mass murder stakes and god is supposed to be the good guy? Innocent Bystander (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The standards of sin do not change. The Bible taught about HOW you should choose who you enslave. Slavery wasn't going anywhere back then. No matter how much the Bible taught about how bad slavery is, it was not going to just disappear. So... the Bible set the standards amidst the bad standards. If things are bad, and they are not going to change, then the only productive thing you can do is set standards within the bad standards.

So, about conception... When you were 8 years of age, if I had thought you were pointless, I could kill you because I BELIEVED that you would be no benefit to anyone. Is that a good standard??? At conception, there is the POSSIBILITY that you MIGHT turn out to be a nice guy and an immense benefit to everyone. I believe that EVEN THE POSSIBILITY of you being beneficial, yet you were killed in an abortion, is a good enough reason to call ABORTION: MURDER. You could not exist JUST BECAUSE OF A WHIM OF YOUR MOTHER. How we can even remotely believe that killing an opportunity of a life is MORAL???!!! Those who do this should be VERY SORRY, and should repent. Otherwise, God will judge them as any sain person would.

Human personality cannot come of itself and you know that.--The Debater (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the old "the bible set out to limit slavery" line - sorry - I don't buy it. If god had had any guts he could have stood up and said "Slavery is wrong" and not fudged it. You make him sound like some sort of politician, not a supreme being. As for your shouting about abortion is murder. I can't understand what you're trying to say. It just sounds like ranting from here.

And I note you duck the 'god the mass murderer" one. Innocent Bystander (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, going back to the old slavery issue, you're saying that the bible is a sort of compromise - the best that could be achieved at the time. Let me reiterate. The book from which all moral guidance is supposed to spring is a collection of fudges? Really? Instead of laying down the truth (the one and only truth, as you would have it) it merely tries to limit the badness. Why? Why couldn't god come straight out and say "slavery is bad"? Oh, god's red hot on forbidding prawn cocktails and cotton polyester mix shirts but slavery, hey guys, just tone it down a bit will you. Wow, do you really believe that? Innocent Bystander (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And, finally, the fact that the bible appears to endorse slavery was used a mere one hundred and fifty years ago as support for the pro-slavery position of the southern US states. From Wikipedia

“”After 1830, white Southerners argued for the compatibility of Christianity and slavery, with a multitude of both Old and New Testament citations.

This raises an important question. I'm sure you would say that they were misinterpreting the bible, that they had got it wrong. How do you know you're not making the same mistake over, for example, gay marriage (I'm working on the principle you're against it - extrapolating from your other views). I'm sure that the southern slave owners were, by their reckoning, good, god fearing Christians and not evil men and women. For sure, they had their holy book to back up their views. After all, didn't the slaves have "the mark of Cain"? How can you be absolutely sure you're not making some sort of similar mistake. Innocent Bystander (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I will only be focusing on one of these issues for now: Abortion. Stating that any rational person's opinion is "ranting" is your own demise. I'm sure that if you actually even perceived the damage it causes EVERY DAY, your testimony against it would sound just as forceful. You better pray to God that He will show you the effect of what you support. Try to think rationally my friend. God save you, just as we pray He saves all of us.

BTW, what's your beef with the Bible about slavery?? Try to prove to someone that GOD WANTS SLAVERY!! I hear the boos already, watch the rotten tomatoes fly. Using slavery as a guilt trip should not be accepted anymore in society. How many times should we say that we're sorry for what our great-great-grandparents did?? Continually re-infusing the racist point of view into society is doing no one good.--The Debater (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Human personality cannot come of itself and you know that."

No, you may want to believe that human personality cannot arise from systemic features of the human nervous system, but wishing will not make it so. You may be unable to imagine the astronomical number of nerve cells and their interconnections in a single human organism, even less understand the particulars of how they develop during the growth of an individual, but that forms the biological basis for human personality and cognition. These things are well studied, with progress still being made. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

How can you say that your personality and nature just formed along with your brain? I cannot prove my point of view, neither can you yours, so lets just can-it.--The Debater (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You're really not much of a "debater," are you? Would you like to get a moderator to change your screen name? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

[ec] I didn't say "brain," but "nervous system." The difference matters, and if you can't be bothered to read the simple things here in front of you, I doubt it would be of any use to point you at any further reading. There is a preponderance of evidence with which you seem to be unfamiliar. Acknowledge you've lost this one, and move on, if you like. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't lose anything. I'm just getting tired of restating the same stuff to a different audience. The brain and the nervous system are CONNECTED. You're just talking in circles to stall the debate. Alright guys, you're wearing me out... If no one else believes what I do on this Wiki, there is no point in me trying to stop you. Keep believing what you all do. Let GOD decide your fate. Or, if you feel the urge to think that you are an animal or vegetable, go off lying to yourself. Godspeed, or ---speed for all you animals.--The Debater (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Someday you may realize that comprehension trumps assertion. In other words, better to use your listening ears than your motor mouth. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if i've gone through all of these issues too quickly. I didn't know what it was like to reply to 2 to 5 questions while supporting my own opinion at the same time?! I'm sick of it. Good day to you all. God bless.--The Debater (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have ever raised a child or children, you will have seen their personalities unfold right before your eyes. It is a natural part of human growth. Kind of amazing to see how fragile and resilient they are at the same time. Raising a kid isn't the kind of thing a respectable responsible adult can just walk away from, declaring themselves sick of it.

As I said before, human growth and development is pretty well studied in exhaustive particulars. It is not really a matter of opinion. Anyone thinking the underlying biology is subject to debate has not taken the time to understand it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about?? I'm sick of replying to all of these questions and stating my opinion. I don't know where you got that?! Read, will ya.--The Debater (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

But you don't reply to questions, you just state opinions. That is not debating. Innocent Bystander (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Debater, in case you missed it, the topic in this subsection is personality, and how it comes about. If you don't see the connection, you might be missing something else.

Your opinions carry no weight, not when compared to the facts of genetics, embryology, neurology, hormone chemistry, and their effect on social interaction. Take your own advice, and do some reading. Something outside your bible and catechism would be helpful. The Cerebral Symphony is as good a place as any to start with. It's pretty accessible explanation, and a fun read. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinions are the same as many peoples opinions. It only seems fair to say that they are highly weighted in a debate. The facts of all sciences that you have listed do not prove your theory of human nature by way of science. Are you well learned in all of those subjects? I cannot imagine our human nature being only the product of our bodies. Don't you believe that a large amount of our human nature is the direct reflection of our soul (the person we really are)? Just saying that all we are is our bodies, is like saying that all there is to ANYTHING is its outward appearance. I think we all know the phrase: "don't judge a book by its cover". This is a perfect example of how we should think about our nature.--The Debater (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"I cannot imagine our human nature being only the product of our bodies." Sorry you have such a limited imagination. I suspect I am better learned in those subjects than you are, enough to have a sense of whose word is to be trusted, and who is slinging unsupported bologna. Tell me what you can about the limbic system, about mirror neurons. There you may find the seat of empathy. Tell me about the well-known graph of inhibition and potentiation, the one that looks like a Mexican hat. How about neural plasticity? All of those would be useful to expanding your knowledge of what we do, and why.

"Just saying that all we are is our bodies, is like saying that all there is to ANYTHING is its outward appearance." Nope. There is much more to a body than its outward appearance. The internal workings of it are complex and marvelous beyond your imaginings. No supernatural interference needed; it all follows from demonstrable natural principles. You are the one who seems to be judging things by the superficial parts that you perceive.

I know a group of spiritualists who believe the soul is about the size of a grapefruit, and hangs in the air somewhere behind a person's head. I don't believe that is accurate. I also do not believe in a transcendent tooth fairy, and I know that stories of the Big Rock Candy Mountain were not literally true, but were a way for free spirits to recruit boys and groom them for the hobo lifestyle. In a similar vein, the soul of which Christians speak may be metaphorically useful in some contexts, but is not necessary for living a responsible, compassionate life. I've got my hands full keeping my activities balanced in the immediate world I live in, without being distracted by elaborate parochial folklore such as RC theology.

Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

THE OUTSIDE APPEARANCE!!! REALLY???!!!What you see may not be the whole story of things. THAT's ALL I MEANT!! If you thought about what I said rather than glazing over my posts and picking out the phrases you don't like, you would understand that I mean appearance in general! It doesn't matter what part of the body you are looking at: inside of arteries/within the cerebellum/cochlea/WHATEVER!! Comparing God to the tooth fairy is like comparing you to a rational being (different meanings depending on what your opinion is). If your nature was ALL in your body, then new medical science techniques should be able to change your opinion without your consent right?? NO!! I cannot believe that some brain rearrangement could do anything to my basic moral values, or my belief in an eternal God, or my belief in Jesus Christ as savior of all humanity from our sins. In my opinion (and 84% of the population's opinion), we all have more to us than flesh and bone. What is it? We don't know. Where is it? We don't know. Dwell on that, READ MY WHOLE POST OVER AGAIN, search up the percentage amount of atheists in the world, and think about the consequences of being wrong at your current state of mind.--The Debater (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, what consequence of being wrong? Are you referring to Pascal's Wager? Генгис^mutating 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I don't think you are shouting loud enough. Try some different colors, and bigger font faces, to see if that makes your words any more believable. You just came out (again) with an argumentum ad populum, and then tossed in Pascal's wager. Ho hum.

You would be amazed how one's opinions can be shifted by small changes to brain chemistry. If you pay attention, you may notice changes in attitude going along with something as simple as being hungry, and then having something to eat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"You cannot be moral without God."

The necessity of God for the development of morality is not evidence of His existence. Discuss. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 13:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Get off the issue. It has been discussed already, and I restated my opinions already.--The Debater (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So here's "The Debater's" technique

1. Assert that X comes from god. Support this with faulty and easily refuted logic.
2. Others easily refute the logic
3. "The Debater" replies "I've already covered that".

So, a rather better name might be "The Asserter" - or maybe shorten that to the first three letters. Sorry kid, you're not doing yourself any favours. You've ducked every question thrown at you with "because I just said so". You are not interested in a debate at all. You thought you could come here and preach at us; as the kids say nowadays, epic fail. Innocent Bystander (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, but to be fair his userpage poll experiment has garnered some useful data! --Damo^Hi 22:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Damo. I'd have to say, even though I don't like the result of my polls, they are the fact of the matter...So it seems that they have done some great work. One must keep in mind also that they are collecting data only from within this website. I'm almost positive that those polls would be opposite if they were hosted at a balanced (non-bias) website.

(reply to innocent) When I and you have already given a discussion all that we have to sway the other side (by putting our argument in ways that the other side understands), we have already discussed all that would do so. I don't duck questions. You seem to enjoy throwing questions at me that you yourself cannot answer (or if you can, you cannot prove the logic in your deduction). Answer your own questions rationally first, and then I will answer them. If they are unanswerable, then you NOR I can answer them, so we should leave it to the unknown.--The Debater (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, to PROVE that one can be moral without god

1. Firstly, from simple observation, there are many, many atheists who lead blameless moral lives without any recourse to any form of god. If god is the only source of morality, where do they get theirs from?
2. Secondly, even those who profess to believe in a god cannot, in any real sense, say that they get their morality from god. If they do then what is the conduit? It's been a while since god spoke to any prophets and we surely don't follow the precepts from the old testament (c.f. slavery). It is far more rational to say that god is the "explanation" invented for the network of social strictures that have evolved from communal living in the age old sense of "I don't understand, therefore god" - aka god of the gaps
3. Thirdly, if we're talking the Abrahamic god then we surely shouldn't follow his example. He's a right son of a gun, killing whole civilisations on a whim. This, remember, is the guy who kills people for eating quails - which strikes me as a trifle tough (Numbers 11 30-33). Why, when you total up the body count, god is worse than satan. Personally I feel that the old testament god is to be despised, not worshipped.

So, in conclusion, I assert that one not only can be moral without god and, moreover, that one should be moral without god. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, from what i've searched, I never said that: "You cannot be moral without God".--The Debater (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that morality does not come from god? Really? Innocent Bystander (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And, to quote exactly, Without God (which can't be, but anyways), you are not held accountable for your actions and will not suffer from them in the end.. You have made it quite clear that, as far as you are concerned, the the prime reason for "doing good" is to avoid having to account for it "in the end". As far as you are concerned god decides what is good and what is evil (prawns, totally evil, slavery, less so). How is this not saying that, as far as you are concerned, morality does not come from god. Stop splitting hairs and PROVE, without empty assertions, that morality comes from god. Innocent Bystander (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Cosmological Argument

Here's another one for you.

You like to use the Cosmological Argument as a "proof" that god exists. In short, you argue that there must be a prime mover and that prime mover is, by definition, god. How do you deal with these two major issues:-

• The Cosmological Argument makes no statement about the nature of god. It's equally valid for any proposed god like being and could be used to "prove" that Thor exists. How do you go from "there must be a god" to "there must be an Abrahamic god"? Or even, more limited, how can you "prove" that there must be an interventionist god, one worth praying to?
• You take it as given that there must be a prime mover. There are no problems with infinite sequences having finite sums. What makes you so sure that this sequence has to have a beginning? Why can't it regress forever?

Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)