03-22-11, 10:10 PM #21
It's not? Formal debates as I know them have a winner (and, as a natural consequence, a loser) as determined by a judging panel. A realise we don’t have any sort of judging panel as part of this sub-forum, but if a winner isn’t going to be assigned then shouldn’t we be calling these threads “structured arguments” (or similar) rather than “debates”?
03-22-11, 10:51 PM #22
It is up to readers to judge for themselves who has "won", if that's what they want to do. As you said, there are no official adjudicators or judges here - only audience opinion.
03-23-11, 12:10 AM #23
03-23-11, 04:35 AM #24
all members here are either staggeringly stupid not to realize that while the objective world will go on after their deaths, their subjective world, of which the objective world is a subset, will cease to exist.
or they're playing dumb because it's a truth too hard to accept.
however, while this is barely acceptable from an atheist, it is absolutely unacceptable from a theist who believes that those who strictly follow the scientific method are going to hell.
out of the mostly good qualities of Geoffp, his intellectual hypocrisy is the one i cannot tolerate, this thread was to expose that and fix it. it was to be extremely easy and short and simple. the least i can say about how i feel for losing this debate simply for being busy in real life is, very sad.
how can you work for a better world after your death, when there'll be no world after your death?
who would spend his whole life, making sure his grave is comfortable?
actually, it's THE difference.
so even though when i proposed this formal debate i had a spacious schedule, i wanted to play safe just in case, at first you didn't mind and only requested g to announce his agreement. then when rockerfeller started abusing his powers carelessly and requesting things already provided, you didn't want to clash with him so you agreed to his condition of a time limit, g proposed 3 days, i thought we stalled long enough so i agreed, just then when all hell broke loose and for the past 4 days i barely sleep 4 to 5 hours a day.
i thought g would be forgiving like spider, but it seems he's not as confident.
I don't think there are many debates in this forum that are of lower quality than this one. (No offence to GeoffP, who made the most of what he was handed.)
03-23-11, 05:58 AM #25
Scifes, so basically you're just selfish; "If I can't have it, nobody can."
03-23-11, 06:11 AM #26
everybody is selfish.
even when acting selflessly, it is only because it makes you feel good.
if giving "it" to others makes you happy, then you're not exactly giving it for no return.
but if others can't or don't trade ego inflation for handing others their things, but rather choose to keep their stuff to themselves and put their happiness at nobody's mercy but themselves, then you're not one to criticize them.
why wouldn't you be selfless to people who don't appreciate what you sacrifice for them, if selflessness wasn't merely a trade of ego for material intrest?
03-23-11, 06:31 AM #27
03-23-11, 07:27 AM #28
03-23-11, 04:03 PM #29Originally Posted by scifes
Originally Posted by scifes
03-24-11, 02:19 PM #30
that for atheists, usefulness is an instantaneous value?
I understand, but since there is no god or hell, this is a nonsensical argument.
you understand, does he?
do the rest of the einstiens who think he won this debate.. heh, who think he actually won this debate before it even started, when it's supposed to be the inverse, do they understand?
however, those who think i don't have a point, and can't see that science produces nothing but better ways to die. are as i said either stupid, or playing stupid because they can.
Yes it was insensitive of me not to learn whatever language you were using. Unfortunately I only know English. :rolleyes
if i was a mod and got caught with this screw up, i'll try to get low.
Uh huh, James doesn’t want to tread on my toes and lets me over-ride him. That’s very believable. :rolleyes
stop doing his shit for him.
james is supposedly responsible for cleaning this forum out of crap, there's a lot of crap, so he got some free helpers. now, if one of his helpers wronged one of the members, james can stand up for the member and risk losing the mod, and so have a shit load back on his hands, or he can squash the member under his boot for the sake of the crap the mod relives him from.
also, while kicking one mod isn't that dangerous, kicking many may if not will get him overthrown, since members come and go and mods usually just stay. so it's a bit smart to make enemies of the temporary and friends of the long lasting.
Oh, that’s right, Geoff lacked sooooo much confidence in countering your arguments. He was positively scared. <I can't use any more rolling eyes smilies which is a shame because there can't be too much rolling of eyes for your silly teenage angst.>
heh, and then refuse to continue the debate in another place, now here, is where you put a rolleyes smilie
03-24-11, 02:34 PM #31
03-24-11, 02:40 PM #32
Originally Posted by scifes
Therefore this statement is false . . .
03-24-11, 05:05 PM #33
03-24-11, 09:30 PM #34
03-24-11, 09:32 PM #35
03-24-11, 10:29 PM #36
Selflessness: acting or behaving without expectation of any reward.
I.e. "no expectations, no regrets".
03-24-11, 10:42 PM #37
Even when one isn't looking for one particular reward for a good deed one still makes sure he/she has been compensated for the good deed by another reward when one knowingly does a good deed. So in this context there is no selfless act.
03-24-11, 10:44 PM #38
What's the "reward" for drowning while rescuing a stranger's child in the water?
How much use is that "reward" to the guy who's now dead?
If the child's mother withholds that "reward" how does the dead guy "make sure he's compensated for the good deed"?
03-24-11, 10:50 PM #39
03-24-11, 10:54 PM #40
Hmm, what about people who have a really good life and don't sacrifice themselves? Are they cheating?
Or how about the guy who risks losing his life and dies anyway? As in: expects to survive but fails while doing a good deed?
By Paul W. Dixon in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & CosmologyLast Post: 12-30-10, 10:07 AMReplies: 1953
By river-wind in forum Biology & GeneticsLast Post: 03-22-09, 08:21 PMReplies: 439
By Atom in forum Science & SocietyLast Post: 09-18-07, 01:42 PMReplies: 50
By Charles_Wong in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 01-10-07, 03:48 AMReplies: 22