Makaze

Alright, here we go.

I have not stated that I believe homosexuality to be wrong, I have stated that the Bible says it is. I haven't stated that it is morally wrong at all.

However, you ask me to state my personal beliefs, while leaving my religious beliefs out of it, which is impossible. However, I will try to state them as simply as possible.

You ask if I believe homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviation could be fine. Assuming sexual deviation to be anything other than straight, this is my answer:

Leaving the Bible out of the equation, I would say that there is no way to discern wether it is wrong or not. I say that it is not a very healthy way to live, and not a very productive one, but if you leave God out of the picture, there is no way to discern wether it is morally "wrong" or not.

You ask if I believe that a god has the right to judge people if there is room for doubt. assuming that there is such a thing as a deity, this is my answer:

I believe that a god does indeed have the right to judge people for their disbelief. WAIT! That is not the end of my statement. Read the rest of it before you base anything else I say on that sentence alone. I believe that if a god works hard at making himself known to people, if he speaks to them directly, if he comes out of his heavenly/olympian/nirvanian home and walks around here on earth, telling the people outright that he is the god they believe in, if he does godly miracles in front of their eyes, but leaves enough room for doubt that there is still free will, and they still do not believe him, he does indeed have the right to judge them for it.

To better illustrate my statement, I will give an example. In Greek mythology, there is a story that Zeus went walking along Greece with one of his sons (I think it was Hermes, but I'm not sure). They came up to a town of rich homes and they stopped at each one, pretending to be travellers looking for a place to stay. Every home rejected them except one, a poor old married couple living on a hill, who gave practically all they had to make these "travellers" feel welcome and at ease. But, they somehow never ran out of anything. They had a jug of wine, and they poured out as much wine as they all wanted, but they never ran out, and the couple noticed. The next morning, the rest of the town had been destroyed and replaced with a shining lake. Zeus told them who he was and built his temple on top of a hill and made the married couple stewards of the temple and provided them with enough so that they would never have to go without again, because they had been hospitable. Now, I'm not going to debate wether or not he had the right to turn the town into a lake, I'm going to focus on a "what-if" about the married couple. Imagine that after all they had seen, after the wine, and the lake, and the temple, and having him say straight-out that he is Zeus, imagine that they decided that there still was room for doubt. Maybe they had more wine then they had originally thought. Maybe the town had been flooded in a freak storm that missed them since they lived on the hill. Maybe the temple had been made somewhere else, and Zeus had just had it brought from the other side of the hill. Maybe he was lying about being Zeus, and was just a crazy guy trying to fool them. There is always room for doubt. So say that they decide that they don't believe in Zeus. I think that Zeus would have the right to judge them.

So, yes. I think that a god has the right to judge people for disbelief. I mean, hey, for all I know, Zeus might be real and God might not be. I think Zeus has the right to punish me for beieving in God instead of him, and vice-versa.

Oh, Makaze... Did you even read what I said? Or are you so stuck in your preconceived notion of what a christian must be that you won't except what I say? Listen to this:

I do not now believe, nor have I believed for several years, that Christianity is true simply because it is what I have always been taught, nor do I believe that it is without a doubt, absolutely one-hundred percent positively true, and I have stated so several times.

You have been stating to know how I was raised, what I believe, what I used to believe, and how I think. And you have been wrong about each guess. You say that you know how to read people by talking to them for a couple months, but you have clearly let your preconcieved perception of Christianity cloud your judgement in this case.

You state that I am co-dependant, and that I was strongly conditioned to be so. Wrong. I have practically raised myself, I have done my own cooking, I have done my own schooling, and I have never been in a romantic relationship, nor have I ever had a "best friend" to take care of me. My mother not only expected me to do things for myself, but constantly pushed me away whenever I tried to depend on her for anything. I am not co-dependant.

You have stated that my position is that Christianity is 100% true, and that I have always believed so. Wrong. I do not know for certain that Christianity is true, nor have I claimed to do so at any point in time in this debate, even back when it was in the ToD thread, I said that I didn't know it to be true, I could only assume that I had found the right truth. In case you didn't know, asssumption is not the same as certainty.

You have stated that I have never even considered any other way of living, I just believe in christianity because it is what I have always been taught. Wrong. For years, I was more of a deist than anything else, I believed that while God existed, and had created the universe, I believed that he didn't involve himself in human affairs, he had created us and then sort of walked away, leaving us to do what we decided was best. Pretty much, he said "There you go, I made you. Now you're on your own." So I believed that there was no "Heaven" or "Hell,"at least, not one that we would go to, we would just live and then die. I believed that while there was right and wrong, it didn't matter which we did, because God didn't care either way. That was what I believed for years. I did not simply believe in Christianity because that was what I had been taught.

You have stated that I am swayed by majority, and when I stated that I believed in a God that the majority of the world had rejected, you amended your statement to say that I am swayed by christian majority. Also wrong. Have you ever heard of Westboro Baptist Church? If not, then you should check it out. They are the embodiment of intolerance and a judgemental mentality. They believe such things as "God hates gay people" and "God loves dead soldiers." They have protested across America, disrupting funerals of soldiers who died for freedom, and victims of horrible hate crimes. The majority of Christianity holds this position. I do not. And I assume you've read and/or watched Harry Potter? The majority of christians believe that J.K. Rowling is evil and is going to Hell and anyone who reads those books or watches those movies is also evil and going to Hell. I do not. I love those books, and have read them several times. J.K. Rowling is one of my favorite authors, and is in fact an inspiration to me that people of today can still write as good as they did back in J.R.R. Tolkien's time. I actually am planning on dedicating one of my stories to her if I ever get it published. Also, Katy Perry. The majority of christians believe that Katy Perry is beyond all hope for salvation, and they believe that she is going to Hell and even if she repents and returns to christianity, it will be too late and she can't come back. I do not believe so. Granted, Katy Perry has done some pretty "bad" things in her time, but according to the Bible, no sin is unforgivable except one, and so far, I haven't seen or heard her commit that one, so on the off-chance that she returns to Christianity, I believe that she actually can. I am not swayed by majority, I instead base my beliefs off evidence, not opinion.

The problem is, you believe that you know what a true christian is, you think that a christian is someone who goes around believing whatever other christians believe, judging people for being gay or american or muslim or for writing something that they heard someone say that someone believes that someone read that some pastor didn't like it. Nobody ever thinks, nobody ever learns, nobody ever questions, everybody is all blind, a follower of blind people, who believe in a blind faith.

That is not me. I did not become a Christian because I was told to, I decided to find out for myself and I learned that I could trust it. I do not believe that J.K. Rowling will go to Hell, and even if I did, I wouldn't believe so simply because that's what everybody says. I heard all the rumors, and decided to find out for myself, and I came to the conclusion that Harry Potter is just as harmless as Star Wars, if not more so. I do not think that God hates gay people OR soldiers, I decided to find out for myself what God claims to think. And according to the Bible, it is not my place to judge other people.

In the Bible, it says "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else. For at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, for you who pass judgement do the same things." This means that I, if I judge you for being bisexual, if I say that you should go to hell for your sin, and are beyond hope, I am practically choosing my own punishment, and I am saying that I also should go to hell, because I am a liar, and according to the bible, lying is just as bad as being bisexual. So, I have no right to judge you. Also in the bible, a group of people brought a woman to Jesus, saying that she was caught in the act of being a prostitute, which was against the law atthat time and deserving of death by stoning, and they wanted to know what he was going to do about it. Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Pretty much, he said "If you've never done anything wrong in your life, you can throw the first rock." Nobody threw any rocks, because everybody has sinned. It is just as bad for me to judge you as it is for you to be bi. So, I won't judge you.

So, a recap:
I have not said that I KNOW that Christianity is 100% true.
I do not believe that it is real simply because that is what I have always been taught.
I am not co-dependant.
I am not as intolerant or judgmental as you say I am.
I am not easily swayed by majority.

If you think I am any of these things, you do not know me at all.

As for the rest of it, you again state that I claimed to have been "wasting my time", even after I have proved that I said no such thing. Again, you don't even read what I write, even after you said

----------
At least read it? I would hate to have wasted my time.
----------
The thing is, you expect me to read your arguments, but don't put forth the effort to read mine. It's like you skim through a portion of my posts, base your conclusion of what my position must be on the small section of what you read and your prior opinions of what you think I mean, and then write a half-thought out reply based on those faulty conclusions, which explains all the contradictions. I said at first that debating with you was not an inefficient use of my time, but I would now like to formally recant that statement, because I see now that it is indeed a waste of time to debate with you. You do not read the statements you are arguing against, you instead base your position against whatever you think my position is, and when I give you out-and-out statements to fight against, you don't even attempt to argue against them. It is a waste of time to debate with you.

If only this was rep-able.

Ha ha ha. I gave up my sanity long ago.

Oh well, I guess I can give it a shot. What do I have to lose?

Hmm. Well mine are used for distance. So I don't know if I can follow that same principle.

I actually wrote this yesterday, but then I had to get off the computer and didn't have time to get back on last night, so... here you go.


----------
Taking two statements and making a connection based on the two statements is a direct conclusion.
----------
So then, I am supposed to make simple connections between one statement and the next. Got it.

----------
What you have done is state something that I did not say at any point in this conversation as if I held it to be true.
----------
Dude, I quoted you directly. You said that you wanted me to take what you say, and read it directly, so I did so, and now you say that you didn't believe your own statements? If you wish for me to read your statements directly, than you should at least attempt to make it clear when you are using sarcasm and when you are actually stating what you believe.

----------
You could not claim to have paraphrased what you said from either statement nor both statements put together. I suppose it would make more sense to you if I told you to take them more directly than you have been, rather than simply 'directly'?
----------
Yes, I can claim to have paraphrased both statements, if you look back at your post, you'll see that they are both word for word what you wrote. I copied and pasted from your post.

----------
False dichotomy. You are to take both statements directly and make a direct connection rather than an indirect one. Whatever it is you seem to think that people who say the things I say believe, it is not lining up. So drop whatever you think you know about what I think and make new connections based on what I say rather than what kind of person you think I am. You continually make out of nowhere statements that may seem like connections to you, but rather than connecting my statements together, you are connecting them to some notion of what you think associates with my statement. Here is an example.


----------
In other words, you wish for me to admit that this world could be an illusion. Therefore, since you wish for me to admit that the world could be an illusion, and as admitting something means that I was wrong in the first place, you are telling me out-and-out that I am wrong. You are telling me that the world is an illusion and my beliefs that it could be real are a result of my stupidity by choice.
----------
The part in bold does not follow at all. It even contradicts the underlined part.
----------
Alright, so you say you wish for me to take your direct statements and make direct connections between them. Got it. Watch this.

----------
In order for either an illusion or a hallucination to be different from reality, you have to define and prove reality. Because you cannot do this, they are one and the same. Apparently you completely missed the point of the exercise: to understand that all of your senses can be 'fooled' in such a way that you have no way of knowing that it is not real.
----------

----------
I simply wish to break you into accepting that the world is not as concrete as you make it out to be.
----------

----------
I argue this as if I believe it to shake your solid ideas of reality.
----------

----------
The point of the exercise is to get you to doubt, which you have good reason to do. It is not that I do not want to believe. It is that I want you to doubt.
----------
Even in this last post, you say
----------
What you were wrong about was whether or not it was possible for this to be an illusion. In getting you to admit that it could, I made you admit that you were wrong about whether or not it was possible.
----------
So you wish for me to admit that all could be an illusion. I did not say you wish for me to admit that it is, I said that you wish for me to accept that it could be an illusion. Next step.

----------
In order for me to admit, I have to have been wrong about it previously.
----------
So in order for me to admit that all could be an illusion, I would have to have beeen wrong about it being real previously. So since you wish for me to admit that all could be an illusion, and as admitting something makes the previous standpoint wrong, the direct conclusion to these direct statements is that you wish for me to admit that I was wrong. Next step.

----------
I thought you were smarter than this. I guess not.
----------

----------
Pity, how childish you are.
----------

----------
You really are simple-minded.
----------

----------
at some point in your life, all of it will make sense to you. It does not yet because you are not fully aware yet. In other words, you are still too young.
----------

----------
You think like a child.
----------

----------
I laugh because you could be as smart as me and you are choosing to stick to what you have been taught.
----------

----------
No thank you. I believe that you are stupid by choice, not by birthright. Is that any better?
----------
So you are saying that I am simple-minded, childish, too young, and stupid by choice, because I choose to believe that I have found the right truth and intend to stick by it.
So then, the direct conclusion to these direct statements is this: you wish for me to admit that this world could be an illusion. Therefore, since you wish for me to admit that the world could be an illusion, and as admitting something means that I was wrong in the first place, you are telling me out-and-out that I am wrong. You are telling me that the world is an illusion and my beliefs that it could be real are a result of my stupidity by choice. This statement was not pulled out of nowhere, as you say, it was a direct conclusion based on your direct statements. Exactly what you want me to do. Meanwhile, you are doing the very same thing that you are getting after me for doing, which is, making statements based on prior opinions of me. Your very next statement in this post, actually...

----------
What I am telling you is, before this conversation, you did not believe that it could be an illusion. You believed that you knew it was not one.
----------
Really? And you know this how? You have not known me for more than a few months, and I certainly haven't told you my life history. How do you know that I never thought about the world being an illusion? How do you know that I believed that I knew it was not one? You are making statements about me and my personal convictions, based on your prior opinions of me, completely disregarding even the statements I had made in the very post you were arguing against. Indeed, you have made statements like that throughout the entire argument. Want direct statements? Got it.

----------
Children adapt to gain the sympathy and trust of their parents because they cannot survive without help. You were rather strongly conditioned, so you may well carry those adaptations throughout your life, but most people rebel when their biology decides that they no longer need to be cared for. You have been convinced that you will need help throughout your life. Make no mistake, nearly everyone's development is designed so that those around them will sympathize. It is a survival mechanism. If you grow up in a violent society, with violent parents, you will naturally adapt to embrace that way of living as a means of surviving among them.
----------
You have no way of knowing what my life has been like. You have no way of knowing that I was "strongly conditioned," you have no way of knowing that I was "convinced that I will need help throughout my entire life." Are you serious? I've practically had to do everything for myself since I was four and my mom taught me how to make a sandwich. In fact, I practically raised my three younger sisters, because my mom couldn't be bothered to. There's a reason why I can't stand peanut butter to this day, as well as bologna. I only eat sandwiches when there's no other option, and still sometimes I prefer to just not eat. Imagine, eating sandwiches for breakfast and lunch every day from age four to age eleven, when you were finally permitted to learn how to operate a stove and make mac and cheese.

I was homeschooled all my life, which is a great practice if you have a good teacher. I was my own teacher, and for a kid who is (self-diagnosed) ADD, that means that I learned thoroughly the subjects I liked that came easy to me and rarely ever worked on the subjects I had difficulty with. That's why I was reading college level books at age thirteen and still struggle with basic math. I know how to do laundry, iron shirts, cook dinners, clean a house, and bite my tongue when getting unjustly accused. You think my mom taught me to do all that? In a way. She taught me to wash dishes by sticking me in front of the sink and saying "Wash." She taught me to clean by putting me in a messy room and giving me a time limit.

You also say that if I grow up in a violent society, I will naturally adapt to embrace that way of living. Wrong. I did indeed grow up in a violent society, I have my mom to thank for that. But that does not mean that I myself have decided to embrace violence. If anything, it has taught me to constantly respect other people, to never do anything to hurt them, because I know what it feels like and I don't want to be the cause of that same pain in others.

As for being strongly conditioned, I suppose you could say that. My dad is brilliant, he wrote procedures for a nuclear power plant for five years, and now he works as a mechanical engineer in a mine. The job he has is one that usually only hires college graduates, but he got in without one just because he's so knowledgable. He taught me to never accept any form of "truth" without weighing in the evidence. He taught me to constantly strive for wisdom, to never stop in one place just because I thought it was "good enough." He taught me to never cease wondering, never stop questioning, never stop doubting, but he also taught me to always try and find answers for my doubts. To stop learning because I have questions is folly, yes, I have doubts about my faith, but that does not mean that I should just forget about it on the grounds that "I have questions." If I have questions, the logical thing to do is look for answers. I'm not going to stop believing merely because I don't know everything about my faith. In that way, I was conditioned.

----------
While you are right that I said you were wrong, you completely missed what I said you were wrong about. What you were wrong about was whether or not it was possible for this to be an illusion. In getting you to admit that it could, I made you admit that you were wrong about whether or not it was possible. I did not intend to sway you into believing that it was an illusion. Rather, I intended to sway you into accepting that you could not tell either way. The bold statement is far removed from that goal, and makes little sense given the underlined statement.
----------
But I admitted from the get-go that there was a sliver of possibilty in everything being an illusion. I never once said that it was impossible for the world to be an illusion, I merely said that I do not believe it is. What is so bad about that? Do you believe in God? If not, than you are no different than me. You have "stated" (Since, you've never admitted) that it is just as likely for God to exist as it is that he does not. But do you believe that he does? In the same way, I state that there is a chance that this world could be an illusion, a chance that I have created this world from my subconscious and only percieve it to be real. There is a chance that nothing exists. Let me say it in bold, so you can finally stop trying to trick me into saying what I have already said.
There is a chance that nothing exists.
However, I do not believe that this is the case. Instead, I believe that this world does exist, and while I can not be absolutely positive that this is the case, I think it is more likely (not to be confused with more possible) that it is true.
Next, I quoted you saying these:
----------
I am saying that if you exist to believe it, then rather, you are wrong to believe that I do. and
You believed, and probably still believe, that you can objectively know things that you perceive. That is objectively wrong.
----------
To which you responded:

----------
How exactly do these contradict? In the first quote, I stated that from your perspective, you would be wrong to claim to know that I exist. In the second statement, I claimed it is objectively wrong for you to claim to know that what you perceive is real. Because you perceive me, they are essentially the same statement: claiming or believing that you know that I exist is objectively wrong. There is no contradiction.
----------
... Yeah, I know that those two statements don't contradict. I put those two statements together because they were similar. What they contradict is the next statement, which is

----------
You could say that I do not tolerate any concrete perception. If anyone believes something fully, I will break them out of it with logic. By believing one thing fully, you refuse to believe that every other possibility could be true, and that is truly intolerant. It is not specific to you or your beliefs.
----------
What I was trying to show you was that in both of the first statements, you say that I am wrong to do something, and in the third statement, you say that by believing one thing fully, I refuse to believe that every other possibilty might be true, and that is truly intolerant. But you fully believe that I am wrong to fully believe. That is the contradiction I was trying to show you, that you fully believe that it is wrong to fully believe. I made this direct conclusion based on your direct statement
----------
By believing one thing fully, you refuse to believe that every other possibility could be true, and that is truly intolerant.
----------
By believing one thing fully, (That one thing being that it is wrong for me to believe something) You refuse to believe that any other possiblity could be true, (In this case, the other possibilty being that God could be true,) and that is truly intolerant.

----------
I do not 'fully believe' it. It is a logical deduction that is not based on my perception.
----------
Hmm. So if you don't believe that it is wrong for me to believe, than why did you say
----------
By believing one thing fully, you refuse to believe that every other possibility could be true, and that is truly intolerant.
----------
If you do not believe that it is wrong for me to believe, than you would not have said that it was intolerant of me to do so. However, if you meant what you said about my believing in something being intolerant towards everything else, than you believed what you said, and if you believed what you said, than you believed in something, and by believing in something, you are intolerant towards my beliefs. But, since you didn't believe what you said, I guess you don't think I'm intolerant.

----------
Even in the sense of 'it could be faulty logic', I accept that the logic could be refutable. However, it has never been refuted, and, like math, it always arrives at the same answer, every time.
----------
But wait, no it hasn't. The world not existing does not come to the same answer every time. The world not existing comes to several different answers, based on perception. That's how you get six different people arguing over what an elephant looks like, and they all are right. That's how you get six different people arguing over what color a balloon is, and they all are right. That's how you get a man living in three different places, and nowhere at all, and having every one of those answers be right. The only way that a non-existant, hypothetical, illusionary world makes sense in regard to mathematics is that according to this philosophy, you can solve any mathematiical problem using any method you like, and the answer will be more-or-less right because that is how you perceived it, and since you are the only mind within provable existance, your perception is right for you. So if you took the problem 345 x 16, and solved it like this: 5 x 16 = 80, 4 x 16 = 64, 3 x 16 = 48, 80 + 64 + 48 = 192, then according to perceptional truth, you would be right, because that is how you perceived it. Mathematically, perceptional truth does not make sense, and you do not always come to the same answer.

----------
If you cannot refute it, then it will remain objective truth regardless of any belief until it is.
----------
Oh, so now it is objectively true that nothing is true? Until it can be refuted? I see. Well, since you feel that it is perfectly right for you to state that an illusional world is objectively true on the grounds that it has never been refuted, then I also will state that Christianity is objectively true on the grounds that no one has ever refuted it.

----------
Your claim is the same as claiming that I fully believe 1 + 1 = 2, and that 'believing' that 1 + 1 = 2 contradicts my statement. I do not believe that, it is self evident.
----------
Oh, so since it is evident that 1 + 1 = 2, you don't believe it is? Do you even know what the word "believe" means? Here, let me define it for you, and since my dictionary is faulty, I'll use yours.
1 a: to have a firm religious faith
b: to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>
transitive verb
1a: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took>
b: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>
2: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon>
You seem to think that 'Belief' only can mean its first definition, "to have a firm religious faith." Believing is more than having faith, believing is to accept something as true, to have a firm conviction as to the effacy of something, and to hold as an opinion. There is more than one definition, you can believe something without it being a matter of religious faith.

Now, the parts that applies to mathematics would be to accept something as true, genuine, or real, which is, to accept that mathematics are true, genuine, or real, to have a firm conviction as to the efficacy, or ability of something, which is, to have a firm conviction as to the abilty of mathematics to produce an effect, and to consider to be true or honest, which is, to consider mathematics to be true or honest. Are you sure that you don't believe that 1 + 1 = 2? Because I sure believe it. In fact, it woud be silly for me to say that I don't believe 1 + 1 = 2, because it is self evident. The mere fact that it is obvious does not mean you don't have to believe it, if you think that something is objectively true, objectively, meaning "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual," in other words, if you think that 1 + 1 = 2 is actual, and not dependant on the mind for existance, than you believe 1 + 1 is actually 2. Do you understand this?

----------
It requires no belief because there is absolutely no room for doubt, at all. There are no other possibilities presented by anyone at this time. No one has presented them in human history. It is perfect, unlike your perception of reality.
----------
Alright, so are you saying that mathematics is perfect, unlike my perception of reality, or are you referring to the belief in a non-existant world? Because the way I respond to this will be affected by your answer.


----------
You do not 'believe' reason. You either acknowledge or ignore it. What you choose to believe or not to believe is your perception of the world. Reason is either acknowledged or ignored. Have you ever heard someone say that they 'believed' or 'disbelieved' your reasoning? That is one of the most incoherent ideas I have heard.
----------
Likewise, I have never heard anyone (up till now) say that they didn't believe that 1 + 1 = 2. That is probably the most incoherent idea I have ever heard. I agree that believing something doesn't automatically make it true, but to claim to not believe something because it is reasonable is just silly.


----------
I am just going to stop here and guess that you will assume this nonsense about 'fully believing' in math and logic throughout your post. You tend to do that quite often, base an entire post on a false assumption. You should stop. It keeps me from repeating myself.
----------
Okay, so now you say that to believe in mathematics and logic is a false assumption? You say that it is impossible to discern a truth, and so it is simple-minded to believe in a truth? Than why not believe in logic and mathematics? It appears to me that you believe in logic, regardless of your claims to not believe it. You have stated several times that you do things by logic, not hypothosis, so doesn't it follow that you believe in the existance of logic? Or do you not believe in logic?
Not to mention, if there is no such thing as discernable truth, than for you to state that 'fully believing in math and logic is nonsense' is a contradicition to logic itself, because logically, 1 + 1 = 2 is correct, and logically, the word "believe" can also include things that are correct or actual, so to disbelieve it is illogical, by your definition.

----------
Here we go again... See the previous statement. If I use logic to debunk your belief that 1 + 1 = 0, am I believing that it does not equal zero? No, I do not believe anything at all about it. I simply apply the tool of logic to the situation.
----------
Okay, see the previous statement. I used logic to debunk your belief that 'beliefs' only apply to things that cannot be proved, but you still have the choice to "not believe" that you believe something? The thing about believing, you do it wether you call it 'belief' or not. Either you believe that 1 + 1 = 2 or you don't. If you think that it is correct, if you think that it is actually 2, then you 'believe' it, wether you use the word or not. That is the nature of the word itself, I even used your dictionary to logically prove it. I applied the tool of logic to the situation, and I believe it. According to your dictionary, that is logically reasonable.

----------
You assume that all knowledge is the same as believing.
----------
Nope. Not assume. Logically reasoned it to be the same.

----------
It is not. Mathematics can be known without senses; without sight, sound, taste, smell or touch. Without a universe, one can still find many objective truths with logic. And they would not have to believe anything to find them. They are self evident. "A thing is itself." There is no belief in that. Are you still going to claim that everything, perceived or not, is based in belief?
----------
No, I am not going to claim that everything, perceived or not, is based in belief. But I will still claim that everything you percieve to be correct, you believe to be. Logically, reasonably, according to your statements and your dictionary, it is objectively true that you believe that 1 + 1 = 2.

----------
Incorrect on objective. That is akin to having an objective mindset, somewhat different. It still depends on where the person is looking from in that case, and how much they can see of the situation, regardless of how unbiased they seem. When speaking of objective truth, this definition works best:

2. Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual

Moving on.
----------
Got it.

----------
Bold is wrong, how can I make this more more clear? It is your perception that is subjective, not the truth. How many times have I said that the truth cannot be known? Why do you keep putting truth in after the word subjective? I do not believe that I have done this even once unless I was correcting your use of it. Point out where I have, please.
----------
With pleasure. Direct your attention to the following quote:

----------
No, it is not. Truth is subjective. If I tell you something, and I believe it, I am not lying. Lying is expressing an idea with the intent to deceive. This is why there is such a thing as 'lying by omission' or 'telling a half-truth'.
----------
In that statement, you directly say "Truth is subjective." And now you contradict yourself by saying that you never said it. I know you don't read my arguments thoroughly, but for some odd reason, I rather expected you to read your own. Really, Makaze, you ought to get your theology straight before you start arguing it.

----------
No. It is necessarily true that objective truth exists. However, it is also objectively true that it is impossible to know what that truth is. At no point did I state that your perception is true no matter what it is. I am not sure where you got this idea, but again, I would like for you to quote me where I said that truth is subjective.
----------
Got it. Once again.

----------
No, it is not. Truth is subjective. If I tell you something, and I believe it, I am not lying. Lying is expressing an idea with the intent to deceive. This is why there is such a thing as 'lying by omission' or 'telling a half-truth'.
----------
And now that I have obliged twice and quoted you when asked, I feel it is only fair for me to make a request of my own. Please quote where I said that you said that my perception of truth is true no matter what it is, or anything alike to it, seeing as how you claim that I seem to believe so.

----------
No, I do not believe it. It is the logical conclusion, not a belief of mine. Even within your own subjective experience, you have admitted that you cannot know either way. Therefore, if you fully believe, then you are contradicting your earlier admission that you cannot know.
----------
So here not only do you fall into the same old "I don't believe it because it is actually reasonably logically correct," but you immediately contradict your statements of this perception of belief by stating that to believe something, I am contradicting my admission that I cannot know. You see, in the same way that it is possible to believe in something as evident as mathematics, it is also entirely possible to believe something without any proof. You first tell me that 'believing' only applies to things you can't know, and then you tell me that if I believe in something, I deny the fact that it is impossible to be sure. Well, which is it? According to logic, if I believe that God exists, namely, if I "consider to be true or honest, accept the word or evidence," meaning, if I consider it to be true or honest that God exists, I must then therefore deny the fact that I can't be sure? Or is it that if I know something to be logically, reasonably, actually correct, I cannot believe it? Which is correct? Can I believe something without knowing it to be true, or can I believe something that actually is true?


----------
I feel I should explain myself a bit more. If you still did not catch it after the numerous hints at such, I was playing the devil's advocate by claiming to believe that I am dreaming in order to prove a larger point. So, when I said that neither of us are wrong, I meant about my foil position. If I had a fully believed that this was a dream, and you had fully believed that it was not, then my overall point was that there is no way to know which of us would be right, or if either of us are. Remember that if. It will be important later, and should have been obvious sooner.
----------
Ah, so now you state that you were "making hints" at something. Was I supposed to catch these hints, and make generalizations based on these hints, or was I supposed to read what you say and take it directly? Another example of the contradiction. You expect me to make "simple connections" that you don't actually believe what you said you believed, but likewise, I am supposed to "take what you say and read it directly." And even if I follow your new statement, which is to say, I am supposed to take your direct statements and make direct conclusions based on those statements, you never directly stated that you did not believe it, you were "making hints." How was I supposed to know you were playing devil's advocate, if I am only allowed to take your direct statements and form direct conclusions based on those statements?

Interesting choice of words, by the way, as you admittedly were trying to shake my faith and get me to doubt my christian belief. Especially as you know the rhetoric, and so you knew that by "playing devil's advocate," you quite literally were saying that you were working for Satan. I'm not saying you believe that you were, I'm saying that it was an interesting choice of words.

----------
False assumption on the part of Action B. Action B is whatever else you had to do. Action B is not simply 'not Action A'. It is a more important action. If you had to say, do your chores instead, that would count. However, if Action B was simply 'not Action A', then what you would really be saying that is that you just did not want to debate, and it is a matter of neither practicality nor efficiency, but simply what you wish to do. It is assumed that no matter what Action B is, it will automatically include 'not Action A' by nature of being a different option. If you had no other goals, then there is no such thing as 'a waste of time' or 'too much time', because you had nothing more important to use it for.
----------
I see. So then, let me tell you what the other option was when I left the debate: hang out online and have fun with friends. If this were the only reason for me to leave the debate, than I agree, I would be saying that I merely didn't want to debate anymore. (Inconsequently, what's so bad about that? If there is no objective truth, then what is so bad about me living to please myself?) However, that is not the main reason that I attempted to leave the debate. I had several reasons for doing so, and will go into those reasons later in my post.

----------
I see the difference. However, you are not displaying it. You used the word practical incorrectly in the bold statement. What exactly makes it less practical to continue the debate? Both leaving the debate and continuing it are practicable actions. There is nothing in the definition of practical that dictates a difference if you are able to do both with the same ability to practice them.

Let me ask again to avoid further problems: What makes continuing the debate less practicable than leaving it?
----------
Again? Read through your posts; you not once have asked me to explain my reasons for leaving the debate, I know, because I was waiting for it. Anyway, these are the reasons I had for leaving the debate:
1. First and foremost, arguing makes me stomach-sick and makes me lose sleep at night. I have had insomnia almost every night this week, and once I almost threw up. So the debate became a hazard to my health.
2. It takes too long to argue in the fashion in which we argue. I spent nine hours on the last post before I attempted to leave, which, even if I didn't have anything better to do with my time, is still a very long time. Call me selfish, but I would rather spend nine hours talking to DT than arguing with you.
3. Your debate style is very hard to follow, full of contradictions, double standards, and illogical reasoning, and when these things are pointed out to you, you not only completely disregard the evidence of your own statements, but you try and twist the statements around to point the finger at the person who told you, and accuse them of not only lying about you, but of being unintelligent and a holder of double standards themselves. Believe me, when I first started debating you, and not just in this debate, when I first started to debate at all, I had several people PM me that I would be better off giving up and staying away, because of those reasons. I'm not sure why I keep coming back for more, I suppose you are right when you say that you are very good at drawing people in.
4. I got sick of hearing you make uneducated guesses about my life history and personal convictions, make fun of my beliefs, and call me stupid by choice for believing them.
5. I had hoped to be done debating by the weekend, because by some stroke of luck, I actually have real-life plans this weekend, and when I am in a debate, I have the tendancy to let my mind become consumed with the debate until I can think of nothing else, and I had hoped to let myself go and enjoy myself for the upcoming weekend. And logically, the earlier you walk away from a fight, the easier it is to leave when you need to, because you aren't completely wrapped up in the debate.

----------
That is not a generalization. They are the same thing. If you spend 'too much' time on something, then you must, by definition, have something else to spend your time on. More, you have a goal that you have a set amount of time to complete. If you did not, then there would be no such thing as 'too much' time. You could just keep debating with no penalties, because you would have all of the time in the world.

If you have a set time limit, and this is taking up too much of your time, then aren't you wasting your time on something, or using it in a way that is inefficient to meeting your deadline? It only follows.
----------
I'm not going to worry about answering this, because I addressed it earlier in the post, so assuming you already read it, it would be illogical for me to repeat myself.

----------
Oh, boy... More stuff based on a faulty definition. Why did you ask me if you were correct about the definitions if you were going to use them regardless? Not going to bother with your incoherent copy and paste paraphrase quote of mine.
----------
Alright, now that I have a correct definition, perhaps you will listen to what I'm saying. Your statement then becomes:
Once again, I do not believe in truth relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience. Or, rather, if truth is relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience, then that statement is not dependent on the mind for existence; actual, and again, truth is not dependent on the mind for existence; actual, just not your perception of reality. "Truth is relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience" is a statement not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. If it is true, then actual truth not dependent on the mind for existence exists. Do you see the problem?

I believe I do. The problem is that if Truth, honest to goodness, not dependant on the mind, actual, truth, really does exist, then truth is not relating to the properties or specific conditions of the mind, as distinguished from general or universal experience. The problem lies in that if Truth is true, than it not being true is false. So then, if your perception of truth, namely, that truth does not exist, is true, than truth does indeed exist and your perception of truth, namely, that truth does not exist, is not true, because it cannot be true that it is not true if it is true. It cannot be true that truth cannot exist, because if truth existed, than it wouldn't be true that truth did not exist. So it is an unending cycle of doubt and headache, because you claim that it is true that nothing is true, and so since it is true that there is no truth, truth is real, because it is true that it is not. So what do these philosophers who believe this perception say? They take your position, which is
----------
There is no way to discern truth, because you cannot prove any position based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
----------

----------
I am going to disregard all of this because of the bold statement. Once again, please, show me where I explicitly stated that objective truth does not exist. I have only stated that it cannot be known. Go on, find it. I am ignoring your arguments against straw men until you can back up what you keep claiming my position is.
----------
I don't need to find it, because I'm supposed to take your direct statements and make direct conclusions based on those statements, remember? So I took your direct statement that "Truth is subjective" and came to the direct conclusion that since you state truth to be subjective, you do not believe it to be objective. That is why I posted as I did, because I read what you said directly, like you told me to, and didn't allow myself to see the "hints" that you were playing devil's advocate and didn't really mean what you said. However, now that I know you were lying, that is, you were
----------
expressing an idea with the intent to deceive,
----------
I will stop taking what you say directly. Not to mention, I never said that any of the above were your position. If you had finished the quote at the end of the sentance, you would see that I said your position was that "There is no way to discern truth, because you cannot prove any position based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt," which was, actually, a direct quote from your arguments, when you said
----------
My position is as follows. There is no way to discern truth, because you cannot prove any position based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
----------
Or were you lying when you said that too?

----------
However, I did find this and I will pick it out because it might help you understand.
"The only evidence to support your position is that you cannot be 100% sure that any other evidence is real." That is all that is needed. And it is not evidence. Evidence is perceived. It is logic. There is a difference between presenting a piece of evidence and providing reasoning.
----------
lol, dude, do you even know what "evidence" is? This is your dictionary's definition of "evidence."
1a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness; especially: one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence
1: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns … are everywhere in evidence— American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2: as evidence
Examples of EVIDENCE
There is no evidence that these devices actually work.
He has been unable to find evidence to support his theory.
Investigators could find no evidence linking him to the crime.
The jury had a great deal of evidence to sort through before reaching a verdict.
There is not a scrap of evidence in her favor.
Anything you say may be used as evidence against you.
So evidence is the proof or testimony, an outward sign or indication, something that furnishes proof. Besides, I thought we were supposed to judge things by logic, from when you said
----------
Logic is axiomatic. If you had nothing but your thoughts; no sight, no sound, no touch, no taste, no touch nor anything else (no experience), you could still think of all possible things using logic. It is not based on anything; rather, it is the foundation on which your mind itself is based. It is the framework. Like binary in a computer.

You are wrong about the part in bold. While it may apply in part, pragmatism is a much better term. Logic has no goals. It only tells you what can and cannot be true, it exposes paradoxes. A pragmatic approach is one that considers evidenced results. A logical approach is one that considers what is possible, and ignores evidence.
----------
(Let me interrupt for a second, to point out that as evidence is reasoning or proof that backs up a statement or idea, logic dictates that it is illogical to base beliefs, meaning to consider or accept something as true or actual, on hypothosis, ignoring evidence.)

----------
If both are possible, then both are possible. Logic does not tell you anything else. Pragmatism, on the other hand, tells you that in order to complete your goal, certain actions are provide more efficient results. Both actions are logically possible, but in practice, one of them is closer to your goal.

When using logic, especially with me, you should ignore evidence and think about something based purely on whether or not it is possible, and not how likely it is. If you wish to discuss how likely it is, then we move into pragmatism, and that is usually a distraction from the base logic that I am using.
----------
and this:

----------
The logical thing is to live for yourself regardless, because you are at an advantage.
----------
and this:

----------
No. It takes less effort and is more logical to take my position.
----------
and

----------
The main difference is that assuming a thing does not exist is the safest and most logical policy. You assume that a unicorn does not exist because you have no way of proving that it does. If you concede that you have no way of proving that anything does, then you can stop believing in it for the same reason. Yours is far less logical.
----------
and

----------
Why do you believe it more illogical? 'Because it is inconsistent with my experience.' But experience is not a basis for logic, honey. You start with a huge set of possibilities (things that are not paradoxical) and you narrow them down based on experience, but that is pragmatic rather than logical. Logically, you have no reason to assume that something exists if you have no experience of it. Pragmatically, what you can use efficiently is more likely to exist, whether you can say that it does in black-and-white terms or not. Do not confuse them.
----------
and

----------
I state that we must assume it does not until proven otherwise. It is entirely possible that it does exist, but that is not good enough to assume that it does. Because every idea tends towards nonexistence (unicorns, dragons, fairy magic, gods), you should assume it first. Logical deduction.
----------
and

----------
Wrong. You can trust logic, but of course your mind is capable of failing to process logic. Logically, trying to refute the existence of one's own mind proves its existence, so there is no way to prove that it does not exist. That is not to say that you should trust anything that your mind comes up with, only that it exists.
----------
All of these quotes are you stating that we must base how we live on logic. And now you state that evidence is perceptive, and it is logic. Well, which is it? Is evidence logical, or perceptive? Because according to your statements, we are to base our beliefs on logic, not perception, and now you say that evidence is both. Evidence cannot be both logical and perceptive, that is, if you weren't lying when you said you trusted logic. Were you lying? Because if you were, that would explain the contradictions.

But, I digress. Evidence is the reasoning behind any truth, that's why it's called evidence. The evidence in a murder case is the reasoning used to prove or disprove the guilt of the defending party. The evidence in a truth is the reasoning used to prove or disprove the reliabilty of the truth in question. To say that evidence is an antonym for reasoning is wrong, as evidence is reasoning. Do you understand?

----------
If you cannot be 100% sure that a thing is true, then you cannot be 0% sure that the others are. Let me give an example, using something you assume(d) to be true.
----------
Again with you making assumptions about me and what I believe. You state that you know what I assume(d) to be true. Just thought I'd point that out.


----------
You cannot be 100% sure that Christianity is true. For the sake of round numbers, let us say that it appears to be 95% percent likely to be true to you.

If it is not 100% likely, then where do those other percentages go? They must be divided up among the other possibilities.

According to this, ideas that you previously placed at 0% likely now have percentages.
----------
Hmhmm. You say here that you know where I previously placed the statistical likelihood of other truths.

----------
Here is an example using one percent for each remaining possibility. I will only use five other possibilities to make it easier to understand.

Christiany is 95% likely to be true.
Buddhism is 1% likely to be true.
Islam is 1% likely to be true.
Hinduism is 1% likely to be true.
Satanism is 1% likely to be true.
Atheism is 1% likely to be true.

The more possibilities there are, the more divided the percentages will be, but that should give you an idea of my meaning.
----------
Yup. So you're saying that since I can only be 95% sure that christianity is true, I should disregard it? Direct statements, please. I don't want to have to try and guess your position by picking out hints.


----------
Your previous position was this:
----------
Again, you state my previous position as if you know what it was, completely disregarding my statements from my last argument.


----------
Christiany simply is true / is 100% likely to be true.
Buddhism must be 0% likely to be true.
Islam must be 0% likely to be true.
Hinduism must be 0% likely to be true.
Satanism must be 0% likely to be true.
Atheism must be 0% likely to be true.

I hope you understand why it is a huge leap even though it is based on that tiny bit of logic.
----------
Yeah, it is a big difference. But I never said that I believed in Christianity just because it "simply is true". I have constantly questioned, constantly wondered, constantly doubted, the fact that I still believe does not mean that I never considered anything else, I actually do have reasons for what I believe, just like I had reasons for leaving the debate. Just because you do not know my reasons does not mean I do not have any.


----------
That is all the 'evidence' I need to get you to acknowledge that the others are possible and become a more open-minded person. It is not a matter of 'just' that. My position is that simple because it that is all it needs to be.
----------
So your "evidence", or, reasoning, is that I cannot possibly be 100% sure that christianity is true. While that is enough reasoning to get me to consider other things, like Atheism, Bhuddism, orr Hinduism, it is still not sufficient evidence to get me to disregard Christianity.


----------
If you use line breaks more often, I may read the rest of it. Edit it for me, and I will try to do so. However, it is not worth reading through the wall if I already have evidence of several false premises. First, the definition of objective truth. Second, the idea that I believe objective truth does not exist, or that subjective truth qualifies as objective truth. Third, that acknowledging logic is 'fully believing' something.
----------
Ah, but you have not presented any evidence that these premises are indeed false. You have proved that they might be and then declared that they are. There is no reasoning in that. Not to mention that this is a contradiction of your earlier statement, that

----------
Evidence is perceived. It is logic. There is a difference between presenting a piece of evidence and providing reasoning.
----------
So, according to your own definition, you haven't provided any reasoning, only perception. Try again. Also, nice that you can just decide to not read my arguments, even after stating
----------
At least read it? I would hate to have wasted by time.
----------
to me. Double standards.


----------
It is not worth my time to argue against you when you already have three false premises built up before you get to the main body of your argument. It would be counter-productive to our understanding each other to bother.
----------
Again, you have not provided any evidence whatsoever that these premises of mine are false. You just stated that they are and decided based on these "false premises" that you wouldn't even finish reading my arguments. I'm thinking that perhaps it is a waste of my time to debate with you, as it is obvious to me that you are not returning the effort that I put into these arguments. I read your posts thoroughly, so that I can better understand what you are saying, and can be more effective in my own. But you don't even seem to remember your own statements, how am I supposed to argue with such incoherency? You should put more effort into your arguments, perhaps you will actually win some of them by winning, not by default when everyone else gives up because it's so contradictory.


----------
I will await an edit with more line breaks and possibly an amendment based on a correction of these premises before responding to whatever it is you said after that.
----------
Got it, I'll do that sometime tomorrow or Sunday and re-post, to make it easier for you to read. Sorry I spaced it so horribly.
Other than the re-post, I'm not going to respond to any more debate until Monday, for the reason I stated in my Reasons list.

And you did nothing special? I may have to try that.

Well, at least that's some good news for once with me.

I take it you do not need glasses at all then? Ironic that your avatar has glasses then huh?

Again, my apologies for the confusion, and I do hope everything is settled.

This world is a strange place indeed. In fact doctors were sure I was mentally ******ed and I would never speak and write.

Yes I do see it now, after the "Smooth, right?" comment.

Perhaps, but you are quick to point them out.

Oh, you did? My apologize. I didn't notice you posted twice about it. Mentally-wise I'm very slow in comprehending things sometimes. I'm actually surprised I haven't lost my job because of it.

Oh, I think I saw what I did wrong. Forgive me. My intentions were not to get you upset, but it seems I already did that. It seems I need to read first before I post.

Really? Care to explain?

Oh, I see.

And as for that bottom part, it is 12:41am so my brain must have skipped over a few words. I'll go back and fix that.

As long as it is the truth, I can wait. And what do you mean by "ask the poster below....."?

Well when you put it that way, no it isn't.

Ah well. I'm actually curious to know your thoughts about me.

It was difficult getting it out in words, but I think using the "write what you think" plan I use made appear smooth for the most part.

Posted. I hope you are satisfied.

Makaze, what do you have against roads?

Hhmmmm...well, I just made this. (its kinda sloppy) What do you think?