SatanLucy

Actually, Cognitive scientists generally concur that stupid people's brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs

I have seen a lot of atheists and theists. Neither are any smart.

7 year olds cannot be aborted

Sure they can. Abort all fetuses from now on, and there won't be 7 year olds anymore either cuz no one born to become a 7 year old.

It's a specific type of evil though. Like people in wheelchairs are less likely to beat people to death, don't think that means being paralyzed makes you a better person necessarily

We are not talking about "better person" as some intentions. At least I am not. I don't count intentions. Just results.

In this case, the Supreme Court (people) decided on a definition using biology

Same thing. I can use ants to make definitions. It doesn't mean ants made a definition.

Also, fauxlaw is a person proposing a definition. So kinda weird for you to reject his opinion outright after saying opinions are necessary to make definitions

He has right to opinion, and people have right to reject his opinion and call him a crybaby. Same applies to everyone.

As if it were better under SloJo. By the way, higher employment, stock market, 401K,. Gold and silver and most other commodity investment, etc, now than then

No one but you handles your personal economy

Does Trump run the economy or is economy at personal level? Make up your mind.

Do you? If not, then why kill them by abortion?

Once you start aggregating people based on gender, biological circumstances are now the primary factor you're studying

The only thing I am studying is difference in evil in men and women. Saying men can't do evil isn't really saying men do evil.

You are apparently unaware that every cell in the human body defines gender

Untrue.

FLRW wrote:

I bet my 7 year old cousin who died from leukemia wished he was aborted.

Do you think 7 year olds with leukemia should be killed?

No cute girls in band.

I changed my mind on abortion issue, partly due to what I learned from your debate with Bones.

First is the uncertainty principle, which goes in a way of:

Abortion is okay and this is known

Abortion is not okay and this is known

Abortion is okay and this is not known

Abortion is not okay and this is not known

Tho uncertainty principle goes both ways here, same can be made for "not abortion".

But it does show that the only way to truly know that abortion is okay is with certainty, and certainty is only achieved with deductive logic.

Later I realized there actually is deductive logic which can be used to ban abortion, mainly the duty to care for others, and no human survives without care.

I agree they could accidentally be right, but if they are right randomly they're not learning because they won't be more consistently right over time, they will continue being right at the rate of chance.

People can want to learn and can want to be more consistently right. However, it still entirely depends on want. It doesn't depend on what truth is. If something was true, I would only believe it if I wanted to. If I didn't want to believe it, I wouldn't. And examples I provided are clear cases of people not evaluating evidence at all. The claim "people believe in truth and reasonably evaluate evidence" is an absolute claim, which gets disproved pretty easily given that at least 80% of the world believes in incorrect religion, many more believe politicians lies, and many more don't even care enough to do research in the first place, and most can't even apply laws of logic to evaluate evidence in the first place.

Men can't get abortions though. So if not getting an abortion is a test of morality, men aren't being tested in the first place.

Yes, but this is irrelevant. Maybe some murderer was in circumstances I wasn't in, but still it doesn't make him same as me. Everyone lives under different circumstances, so circumstances don't matter much and aren't excuse. Also, if abortion is bad and men can't have abortion, it just means men can't do what is bad, which is also good and makes them better than women.

If you believe what you want, then it doesn't correlate to what's true

It can. I can want something to be true, and it can be true at same time. There is no "what people want to be true must be false" mentioned anywhere. This is just about making a clear distinction that people don't believe in truth in any sense of "I believe this is true because it's proved true". It is just "I believe this is true because I want it to be true, and if it is true as well and has evidence supporting it, great".

If this was true it would be impossible to learn anything

People can learn if they want to and have capacity. So believing in what you want to believe is not logically contradictory to learning.

"Give me one example of existence of something which in its existence doesnt follow law of identity."

I notice that you blatantly failed to respond to this.

I made the point that non-existence is the default position

And I disproved it in many ways, some which you failed to respond to at all, such as that your position on the issue is entirely irrelevant to the existence of God.

The phrase in this context clearly meant failure to abide by the rules of logic in terms of reasoning.

the rule of logic is law of identity. So go ahead, give me example of reasoning which in its existence doesnt follow law of identity.

Your argument was about people "wanting something to be true." Even if people wanted to believe the world sucks, they don't want it to be true that the world sucks

This is only if you define pessimism as "believing things you don't want to happen happening", and not some other alternative definition, and it still means people want to believe that world sucks, and it still can mean people wanting world to be the way some other part of them doesn't want.

Just listing a bunch of false beliefs doesn't really support your claim, especially since you're cherry picking

My argument isn't based on deductive reasoning, so I am forced to go by examples. And these examples do show clear cases of wishful thinking happening not just in past, but also today.

If I were to go by deductive reasoning, I would say people cannot believe in things they don't want to believe in, as that is a logical contradiction. So believing requires some form of wanting to believe in, and this is true even in case of evidence. Person realistically only believes evidence if person wants to.

If people never considered evidence, no one would learn anything and we'd reach an information heat death. In fact, you'd have no way of knowing your claims are based on evidence, so it's a bit self defeating

I didn't say people never consider evidence. I said people consider evidence only when they want to. And there are a bunch of people pretty much denying evidence to such high degree that this is simply true in those cases obviously, and it happens on mass scale from time to time too.

Most people want the economy to be doing well and that the world is doing great, yet they have no problem believing that the economy is terrible and everything sucks

Nah, people actually prefer believing in pessimism. The economy is pretty much doing better than ever, and world is probably one million times better than it was 100 years ago by some standards. But when you want to believe that world sucks and that economy sucks, one must merely use a different standard to evaluate it. Anything can be made good or bad depending on standard, and people will always use a standard which better suits their wants. This is also true when it comes to determining truth. It is a well known fact in justice system that people actually evaluate evidence based on what they already assume is true. If they think something is not true, they are ready to reject even a very strong evidence. If they believe something is true, they are ready to accept even tiniest hint of evidence to make it true.

What I am talking about isn't some unknown theory. It's a well researched theory in psychology that people are more willing to accept evidence for things they already agree with, and more willing to reject the opposite.

Call it confirmation bias, or wishful thinking.

It works in a sort of way: I believe in A, so I will search any kind of evidence or excuse to support A, and I won't bother to even consider non-A evidence.

It's why people who have Muslim parents are most often Muslims themselves. Same for pretty much any religion. When people get some idea in their head which they learn to like, they are not gonna abandon it even if evidence for other side is stronger.

Of course, it's not true for all people, but people are emotional creatures, not logical.

There are emotions attached to ideas, and those emotions override evidence.

Did Germans in 1944 really believe they could still win? Yes. Was there one bit of evidence suggesting they could? No.

Did Iraq have weapons of mass destruction and was about to use them against USA? No. Did Americans believe it? Yes.

Did Americans believe Trump will stop all wars in 24 hours? Yes. Was it even logically possible? No.

Do some people believe Earth is 6000 years old? Yes. Is there a single drop of evidence supporting that claim? No.

Do some people believe that their religion is the correct one? Yes, virtually all. Is there a single logical evidence supporting that claim on any religion? No.

There are countless things people believe in on a daily basis which literally have no evidence supporting it, or such weak evidence accepted only because person wants it to be true.

A choice to trust a politician or anyone is essentially wishful thinking.

Choice to pray is wishful thinking.

Choice to accept something as true just because it's popular is likewise wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking is basically not about what is true, but about what person wants to be true.

Reality is, wants come before evidence.

If I want something to be true, I will keep searching for evidence and excuses, I am not gonna stop and say it's not true. If I can't find evidence, I will just dismiss opposing evidence and call it a tie which still means I keep my belief.

One of the biggest giveaways that someone fails this test is when you present an analogy and they accuse you of trying to change the subject.

Oh yeah, you should stop doing that.

The question I asked couldn’t have been simpler; ‘is statement X a logical contradiction?’. There is absolutely nothing about that question that implies you argued anything nor sets you up for any kind of gotcha. But that’s what you have to resort to when you know everything you’re arguing is complete nonsense.

It is still irrelevant question, given that my argument was about beliefs, not about any written statements. So why should I answer a question which is not only irrelevant, but also stupid because statement existence likewise cannot violate law of identity.

You just argued that you can simultaneously hold a belief that God exists and that he does not exist at the same time. So following up by asking you if you believe that very set of positions are logically contradictory is of course relevant

written statement = / = belief

First of all, we’re not even talking about the law of identity, that’s a totally different thing

No, law of non-contradiction is built from law of identity. You cannot have a contradiction without violating law of identity.

Second, you’re the one who claimed that you can believe God exists and does not exist

Yes.

not you’re claiming a person holding positions that violate logic is not possible? WTF?

How is it possible to violate logic? Please explain. Give me one example of existence of something which in its existence doesnt follow law of identity.

You are obviously trolling, nobody is this stupid.

Given that you are failing to understand even basic things in logic, you probably should do something more productive, like playing with lego. Its more on your level of intelligence. this isnt for you.

A question is not a strawman genius.

It is when it questions a claim I didnt even make as some pathetic attempt to make a strawman argument point which at same time is irrelevant to anything I said.

All you have to do is answer it to clarify what you’re actually talking about

Why would I answer irrelevant question? Why dont you answer if you have herpes? Its about as relevant as your question is.

So you seem to tacitly acknowledge that holding two contradictory positions simultaneously is a logical contradiction

No. At this point, I must assume that you have severe hallucinations caused by herpes, because I literally said that holding opposite positions is not a logical contradiction.

, but argue that the holding of the positions itself is not a logical contradiction because that can in fact happen in the real world.

Yes, what is true in reality cannot at same time be a violation of law of identity.

No one is arguing that people cannot contradict themselves, that’s a stupid direction to try and take the conversation down.

Actually, it is impossible to violate law of identity, so literally any belief which violates it couldnt exist in the first place.

We’re talking about whether the position of accepting a proposition is logically compatible with not taking a position on that same proposition.

I dont think you even know what you are talking about, because to be honest, I have never seen a person struggling so bad to comprehend that people can have opposite beliefs.

About 25% of women have an abortion.

Because abortion is child murder, it means that over 25% of women are child murderers.

So 1 in 4 women is a murderer.

I don't think there are any exceptions to abortion ban.

Simply, whatever happened to a woman doesn't justify killing innocent unborn any more it would justify killing innocent born.

If woman was raped, and she has an abortion, then she is child murderer, so she is worse than rapist and then the rapist should get financial support because woman killed his child.

What's stopping ytou from acting on ytour impulse? No reeason top stay

I am not in USA, just if I was, I would prefer not to be.

Don't worry, the republicans and democrats are both bad. You don't need to fight over who is bad. You both are.

What I see constantly is that people don't actually care about truth.

If they want something to be true, they will take tiniest argument in favor of it over countless arguments opposing it.

Because people don't want truth. They want what they want to be true.

This is why people always get persuaded by even weakest arguments for something which they want to be true, while at same time dismissing much stronger arguments against it.

Because people don't want truth if truth disagrees with them. They are ready to go to great lengths to deny all arguments against their beliefs, while at same time unconditionally accepting even weakest arguments for their position.

Let’s be very clear. Evaluate the following: ”God both exists and not exists (at the same time in the same sense)”

Is this a logical contradiction? Yes or No?

I don't know why you are now doing a strawman, because we were talking about belief in existence there, not existence of God.

Logical contradiction is something which can't exist in reality logically.

However, believing in both that God exists and doesn't exist is not a logical contradiction, and can exist in reality.

Mainly because it doesn't violate law of identity because opposite beliefs exist in their separate spaces and aren't actually a negation of each other's existence even at same time.

Of course, this level of logic is not imaginable to you, because you don't get it. Logically contradictive beliefs cannot even exist because what violates law of identity cannot exist in reality logically. So all beliefs which do exist are in fact following law of identity, not violating it. If they existed and violated law of identity, they would be supernatural. So contradictive beliefs either dont exist or are supernatural. No 3rd option exists here.

One of biggest issues in biology as a science is in fact failing to define anything. I asked countless "biologists" on the definition of "species" in evolution debate, and nothing. they literally cant provide a definition of species. they cant even define specific species in any sense, mainly due to individual difference issues which general definition fails to account for.

Also, if having a vagina makes someone female, one merely needs to remove vagina to stop being female. So yeah, claiming that having a vagina makes someone female is actually pro trans claim.

Biology doesnt make definitions, people do by their opinions. So yeah, your opinion is rejected.

Well, technically, UK is the worst country on Earth, but anyway, its not like I want to be logically consistent.

to be honest, if I was born in USA, I would prefer to get deported. Worst country on Earth.