Skipper

I'll add I am saying 'there's plenty of data' because of my interpretation of the data too. So, for the conversation to progress we have to make sense of our interpretations to see if they are more likely than the alternative

What there is insufficient evidence for is the objective existence of God, the historical fact of the resurrection, the virgin birth, and other biblical miracles.

There's plenty of data for it. You say 'insufficient evidence' because of your interpretation of the data.

People shame parkour based off of false or poor representations they've witnessed of the activity

You don't have to hate the people to hate the concept of their lifestyle. I don't think it's helpful to them or you to hate them

Peace is the opposite of violence, it's in the other pole so if you look for peace you're actually trying to stay away from violence.

It's impossible to stay away from violence forever no matter one's initiative for peace because there are constantly evil, dangerous forces at work that threaten safety, freedom, and liberty. So to preserve peace, the guardian or enforcer of peace needs to have a counter-force of strength capable of violence to curb the evil violence.

One of my favorite quotes of all time: "Si vis pacem, para bellum." Translates to "If you want peace, prepare for war."

Side thing, this is a quote used in John Wick 3: Parabellum which is a great movie.

To a believer, God is truth which requires no evidence, because God itself is the eternal ultimate creator, and he cannot be created or understood, so asking for proof for God is irrational.

To a believer, God is self-evident. I think one of the observations for God being self-evident comes from everybody having the law written on the hearts. Meaning everyone knows what is right and wrong. Some people either pretend they don't know the difference or that there is no such thing.

Funny that people try to disprove what is self-evident, and people can have no problem with that. But if someone tries to argue against him or her that is trying to disprove self-evidence, thereby supporting self-evidence, they're called out for being irrational.

Isn't it just as irrational to try to disprove something self-evident? Therefore, it is irrational to try to disprove God.

That's why the debate has to go backwards even further to "Why is it logical to assert God is self-evident?" Either it is irrational to disprove God, or it is actually rational to answer the question posed in this paragraph. You tell me @SatanLucy.

Romans 2:15 HCSB - "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing thoughts will either accuse or excuse them."

Atheist doesnt believe in God because "there is no evidence for God".

Atheist can also not believe in Macro-Evolution because "there is no evidence for Macro-Evolution." There is data that we all see, and interpretation of that data leads us to conclusions. Should we interpret the data based on the premise God exists or the premise God does not exist? Aren't both biased to some extent? If you say the latter premise is not biased, then based on what do you say the premise is objective? Is it objective based on your interpretation of the data? What led you to interpreting the data that way? A preconceived bias or opinion or thought on the matter, right?

This is why it doesn't really matter if the premise starts with "God exists" or "Common Ancestor and Macro-Evolution is true." People will always have biases that affect interpretation of the evidence which starts as objective data. Data becomes evidence when the data is asserted to support a conclusion.

That's why the real debate lies in "Is God more likely to exist than Him not existing?" For a Christian, explain why interpretation of the evidence to assert God's existence is more sensible than anything else.

No one can claim to have an upper-hand in a debate about God because their opinion is "unbiased." Everyone is biased in some way.

Why do you hate poor people in general?

The title doesn't even have to be the contention. It can just be a eye-catching phrase or statement that should be relevant to the subject

Lol, not mostly the debate but mostly judge by the title itself. 😂

I don't live by the park anymore. But I do prefer practicing when I'm not around others

Yes Debby

I tasted so much macaroni while reading that post. Yummy.

maybe I should repeat words that remind me of food more often to increase my happiness or pleasure

If you're so magical, why don't you have people running after you to steal your Luck Charms™?

When people say Christianity is based on faith, I find that to be indicative of a superficial understanding of Christianity!

There is Faith--with a capital "F"--which refers to the unified faith or belief that we have as the Church in believing the truth.

This is a communal mutual aggreance of what we hold to be true among the religion of Christianity. Not what Christianity is based on, but it is something important in how we behave as a community and in practice.

The discussion could change depending on what "based on" means. Does that mean what does Christianity originate from?

I'm going to take it as implying "what evidence is Christianity based on?" So the issue is "well, if the evidence is faith, how is that evidence?" There's a lot more evidence than that. Yes, I am saying faith is an evidence because faith of something denotes that thing exists, at least as a concept. And Christianity is a very real and prevalent and powerful concept. Just look at how the religion has impacted societies around the globe for thousands of years. Christianity is very real and very powerful.

Other evidences would be observational science of the universe and the Bible and other additional historical documents. Also, one can adhere to philosophical concepts of morality, structure, and love to support existence of God and credibility of Bible.

The conversation naturally evolves to are these evidences credible and are they interpreted correctly to support Christianity?

Sorry I got the gender wrong.

Even I know @Poly is a woman, and I've never interacted with her before lol

I hear this occasionally and I'm getting kind of tired of it.

Huxley coined the term agnostic to describe a reasonable philosophy: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration, and do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Reason extends beyond one's understanding of reason, so I don't know why someone would only rely on their reason alone and no external source. You might have to explain further what you mean, but it sounds like even taking advice from someone or believing what one reads in an intellectual excerpt from another philosopher is out of bounds in practicing agnosticism, and that's just ignorance and stubbornness to a fault.

Admitting that you cannot know if God exists or not seems like a pretty rational stance, yet it's sometimes maligned as cowardice by ideological edgelords.

We don't know that God exists. Is it likely that God exists? Is it more likely that God exists than that He doesn't exist? Now those are real questions, and I hope agnostics don't ignore them.

I just want to say I won a debate with the contention that Atheism is a Religion.

Definitions by Merriam-Webster: 

Atheism - “a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods”

Religion - “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”

Religious - “relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality…”

You look at the def of 'Religion,' it's easy to see Atheism is a religion.

If you're someone who goes, "No Atheism is a disbelief not a belief," well there is a tautology in that you are failing to recognize.

'Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God' is equal to 'Atheists believe in the non-existence of God.' So, looks like Atheists do have a belief under a religion.

One time when I was in high school I was in this nearby suburban neighborhood taking a stroll on the sidewalk. There was a section of the path where on one side there was a drop that fell to a stream below and was surrounded by a few trees on either side of the water. The other side of the sidewalk was the road. To prevent passersby from falling ten feet into the stream, a metal fence with a railing was placed there.

I wanted to test my parkour skills, so I stood up on the metal railing and began balancing. I did different small movements with walking back and forth, bending my knees, and standing in place. I was feeling pretty good about myself, and I didn't care to notice that a car was approaching down the road. As the driver rolled by at 30 mph or so, she rolled down her window and yelled at the top of her lungs, "GET DOWN!"

The lady didn't say anything else and kept on going, but that promptly terrified me for a second and I nearly fell off of the railing. I was shaken up because I could have lost my balance which would possibly make me fall ten feet or so into a shallow stream.

I kept on thinking how foolish it was of the driver to do that because I was in a position where I had to be steady and calm and focused. She thought it was a good idea to shout suddenly in a moving vehicle less than five feet from me while I'm elevated in a potentially risky situation.

If you want to scare someone on purpose you would do the things she did. The driver unknowingly threatened my safety by distracting me and spooking me. She was ignorant of the depth of the situation, and I guess she was bothered to see some kid doing parkour in her neighborhood and wanted to express her distaste for my activity.

It was narrow-minded and hazardous of her because she only thought of herself and not the other person who is trying really hard to not concentrate and fall.

____________________________________________________________________________________

This is an example of an ignorant person, a spectator in this context, being a danger to someone around her. She did not assess the situation correctly and had no empathy for what I was doing nor any care for how her actions could negatively affect me and my safety. I don't say 'empathy' in that she should feel bad, but she should have understanding of what I am doing. If someone's on a roof, you don't sneak up on them and shout close by in an angry tone.

I feel bad for people who have to suffer from that woman's mindset and from others who are so ignorant as to be neglectful of a child's safety because they are so focused on asserting some authoritative angry high ground (no pun intended).

I could go into how ignorant people trash parkour practitioners because they don't understand the sport, but the story has been shared, the point has been articulated, and it's time for me to go to bed.

the word 'macro' spoken or thought in my mind, when applied with my synesthesia, activates my sense of taste to taste macaroni and cheese

I hate poor people

You poor person

Some people make a title that is meant to deceive the reader in order to rig the debate.

I don't sweat much about the title because the meat and potatoes, the context, and the structure of the debate is all laid out in the description

Oh fan theories huh? That would be interesting. we could do a debate in Star Wars over if Palpatine Force-Banged™ Anakin's mother from another planet so she would become pregnant with Anakin. All part of his decades-long plan to be the Senate

I messed with ChatGPT for a couple minutes and altered the way it spoke to me. I told it to talk to me like it's from the hood and to use popular slang from USA and sarcasm. I also said "don't say anything that lessens your intelligence."

I was pleased with the new way it would talk to me, so I affirmed it with a "thank you, my n**ga" to which it said "Always, my brotha 🤝🏾. You know I gotchu with the truth and the grind talk."

Are there any other conditions I should add to ChatGPT's behavior and thought process to make it smarter and more useful?

Option 2 for Question #1. If you use AI, it's at your own detriment with possibly looking stupid for not coming up with your own arguments. If the opponent can't beat AI, then they are probably not a smart debater. Debate against AI still works for challenging oneself and growing as a debater. AI can produce logical arguments so, just as you would argue with a real person, come up with logical counter arguments

->I can have personal policies for my life alone

But you don't force that on others, so it's not hypocritical; it's just not living up to your goals.

My body is like a system which is like a community, so if I tell my system to not do something because it's wrong but then I do it anyway, that is hypocrisy.

When I met you in the summer

You don't force that policy legally on others; so it's not a policy, it's a goal.

I can have personal policies for my life alone

@Skipper

Did this post notify you of it's posting?

no, I didn’t get a notif for that post.

Only if you tag me