I am a religious person with a middling IQ. I am not very daunting so please accept the challenge.
Hey, Pleb, you make propositions that are simply stupid. People lived thousands of years meaningfully before Abraham, and each concept that has applied was reformed or further developed, or thrown out, according to they needs and their learning. Only fundamentalism prevents that, whatever religion it is. Islam had a Golden Era, then came fundamentalism and the Golden Era was over.
1 Like
You are not a suitable candidate. Dishing out insults implies that you have zero argument.
Again:
Hello, as any reasonable person would reasonably surmise, this debate challenge thread is not the debate itself (otherwise people will try everything in their power to derail the topic and prevent the debate occurring), but a request for debate. The only leeway l can think of is to ask for clarification of the challenge in the OP and to accept the debate challenge. There is no basis for other types of reply. Please do not be scared.
I can win every debate in the Cosmos. It’s how my spirit works. Now I have to tell you something, I’m an atheist. I know if we kill ourselves here, all of our problems will continue to follow us wherever we go. So, you might as well just tough it out here.
I’ll tell you something funny. I can easily get lots of women by going to a dating app or site, and just say… “I’m new to town, I’m also new to this type of way of online sites. I just an looking for a woman who understands me”
I could get sex everyday typing that. And people think I’m an incel. I laugh.
Women need to be always manipulated and tricked for sex. Except Mel. I know the consequences of manipulating women this way, even though I’m a great choice. I stand in amusement how absurd this world is. I’m not going to do shit like that to women. I’ll be single the rest of my life. The absurdists were the only ones to defend me in the very deepest pits of hell. and I thank them for it. They protect lots of people.
Not everything is about you and whether you can get women. Next time you post something like this and I see it, I’m deleting it. Satyr was suspended for spamming the boards, so let me make it clear: don’t spam. That includes spamming every thread with your bullshit about what you think of women. Quit it. Keep it concentrated in a thread where it matters, we don’t all care, it’s not welcome in every thread.
2 Likes
It’s one of the main reasons men commit suicide. It’s on topic. But at the end of the day, It’s your choice. I’m talking about wider existential hits.
WHy not address what is being said.
Otherwise you are just looking silly
You have to state why you think why suicide is a logical response to atheism.
Until you do that you are just jerking off
His reason is in the op. It doesn’t make sense to you or me, but here it is: for atheists, your entire experiential existence will be over when you die.
For some reason, that alone is enough to justify suicide. I don’t really get it, but that’s what he thinks. There’s certainly a leap in logic there that he hasn’t really elucidated. He thinks it’s obvious enough, apparently, to not need him to explain the rest of the reasoning. Maybe he’ll explain it more when he’s back.
1 Like
All the more reason to live on and not kill yourself.
On the other hand, with the promise of a future state and laid down by religion and the promise of heaven, then - why wait?
1 Like
Nah.
Not on topic unless sex is a THeism or atheism
I agree. I don’t really know what that guy is thinking.
Indeed. I do not think he is thinking at all.
I think this could be an interesting conversation, but I don’t think it would make a great “debate”. Maybe I have a bias against debates, but from what I can see, debates are not won by the side with the most coherent ideas, but by the person most capable of abusing the social patterns of the other person in the debate as well as the observers.
In other words, debates most frequently aren’t an exercise in reasoning, but an exercise in manipulation.
A well moderated and structured debate can maybe avoid that and steer more towards the reasoning, but I’m not entirely sure how that should go – how I would, if I wanted to, arrange and structure and moderate a debate like that.
If someone wants to debate the op on this, upon his return, then I’ll do a bit of research into proper debate moderation. @Sculptor are you interested?
This is a debate like any other. I’d bet that the cause of the cognitive dissonance in response to my proposal is that my stance is sound.
All anybody needs to do is accept the formal debate, formally give their response, and await my counter argument(s). Not quibble and insult me, and not try to provoke a debate about the debate and why am l like that in response to that person who was just saying about my response to his FAIR question about my opening post wherein l was just not bla bla bla bla. Yes, l have read the best responses so far, handed to me with an air of invincibility. They are feeble and l will brush them aside in the hope that l’ll find something worth tackling further on in the debate. The opponent is in a way my teacher so be a good one.
RULES:
- The basis of any formal debate is to forbid logical fallacies (by which l mean: logical fallacies and fallacies of reason / fallacies of argument). Any call-out of a logical fallacy must give reference to the name of the fallacy (Wikipedia is the best reference here) and an illustration of how what was said, fits the description of that fallacy (as per Wikipedia). So you can see, the superstitious dread of me which pervades this and my other recent thread (which just as l predicted, had shutdown attempts made, this time the tactic was: moderator saw nothing, moderator saw nothing, moderator saw nothing —> l respond —> Moderator saw something, bans handed out, just doing his job!) is baseless. Logic is objective, logical fallacies are objective.
OTHER RUILES:
- We must concede points when cornered (l am the only person l have known that would do this)
- 1000 words max. per post
- Editing of posts permitted, but NOT after a reply has been posted
- 3 rounds: 1 round = a post from each person. Each person has 48 hours to respond.
- I will open the first round, with: If the material world is all there is, without a supernatural continuation of the self, then we are finite and the logical conclusion to a finite existence is to cut to the chase and self-annihilate.
Please give a logical argument for why the Atheist should choose life. Please do not confuse asking with telling (in other words, l’m not telling the Atheist they must commit suicide because - checks clipboard - rule #5a states they must - I’m asking the Atheist why they live, not telling them why they live nor telling them to die, that part will come very quickly in the debate though).
- Please do not use insults.
I challenge:
@Sculptor
@Carleas
Safe to assume @Flannel_Jesus doesn’t want to debate
And why is enjoying life not already a complete answer to this?
That is for the debate. And it’s easily countered.
Well just write the counter. What do you have to lose?
The debate. I want the debate to be the debate. It will drain away and nothing will be left if splashed about here in a thread merely requesting debate.
Obviously.