The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: honk on July 17, 2022, 05:21:11 AM
-
In the current thread discussing the Gospel, Tom is using an argument that I think crosses the line:
You can prove to yourself whether the Bible is true any time you want. You merely need to go on a shooting spree in an elementary school and then take yourself out in an epic mass murder suicide.
This isn't a joke that I'm taking out of context or anything, it is literally the entirety of his post. And he has returned to this argument again:
The method of obtaining evidence was already explained to you. The Bible says that you will go to hell if you do bad things. So go do some really bad things and then end your life in suicide and you can find out first hand whether it is true.
And again:
If you are unwilling to perform the experiment the fault lies with you for opting out on unscientific excuses like personal morality and fear.
And again:
The Bible says God and other supernatural beings are generally in other realms in the afterlife, so it only makes sense to go there. The Bible says that you can get there and experience these supernatural beings first hand with only a few actions necessary on your part. People have committed suicide for worse reasons than an effort to prove the Bible.
I know that Tom is a troll, but I don't think that this line of argumentation, however ironic, should be allowed in the debate forums. And no, this isn't exactly prohibited by the rules as written, but at the same time, it's obviously not a good-faith argument and comes across as really creepy and unsettling. I think a mod ought to step in and put a halt to this kind of I-dare-you method of arguing.
-
it's obviously not a good-faith argument
Actually, it is. If someone is jumping up and down saying that there is no way to get evidence for religion, the argument I provided, while extreme, successfully shows that statement to be incorrect.
-
Unusually, I’m on Team Tom in this one.
As I noted in the thread, it would be a silly experiment to do. The cost of doing the experiment is your life and if the Bible is true you get eternal damnation too.
So 1 star, would not recommend.
But while it was a bit silly I don’t know why you’re objecting to the posts. You could just report them and see what a mod thinks, why is a thread here needed?
-
The feigning of moral outrage over this philosophical argument is pretty ironic coming from former user Saddam Hussein -
Hell, let's make this real simple - you want to know what the difference between Saddam and other IRC regulars is? Only Saddam starts telling people to kill themselves when he's told to fuck off.
-
Unusually, I’m on Team Tom in this one.
As I noted in the thread, it would be a silly experiment to do. The cost of doing the experiment is your life and if the Bible is true you get eternal damnation too.
So 1 star, would not recommend
That's exactly what makes it a bad-faith argument. Obviously nobody's going to perform an "experiment" that involves killing themselves or other people, so there's no point in repeatedly suggesting anyone do it. It seems to me like it's more an attempt to be shocking and upsetting than anything else.
But while it was a bit silly I don’t know why you’re objecting to the posts. You could just report them and see what a mod thinks, why is a thread here needed?
It isn't strictly against the rules as written, so I thought a thread would be better to make a case for why this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. But if the mods and/or the community at large don't agree with me, that's fine too. I'm not trying to boss anyone around.
-
i agree with honk. i think it's extremely not okay to encourage people you barely know to kill themselves.
-
That's exactly what makes it a bad-faith argument. Obviously nobody's going to perform an "experiment" that involves killing themselves or other people
It won the argument. It was conceded that the analysis was correct that there was a way to get evidence and determine this, but the method was too extreme for their liking.
No one has to actually commit suicide for an argument to have merit. And it's silly to argue that we can't use suicide or killings as a tool to show a point in philosophical arguments.
-
it's obviously not a good-faith argument
Actually, it is. If someone is jumping up and down saying that there is no way to get evidence for religion, the argument I provided, while extreme, successfully shows that statement to be incorrect.
Tom, you a now just telling a damn lie. All I did was say I was looking for such evidence before you ran off on your "go kill yourself" tirade. It's such a stupid suggestion anyway, so it really does not bother me.
-
That's exactly what makes it a bad-faith argument. Obviously nobody's going to perform an "experiment" that involves killing themselves or other people
Actually it won the argument. It was conceded that the analysis was correct that there was a way to get evidence and determine this, but the method was too extreme for their liking.
No one has to actually commit suicide for an argument to have merit. And it's silly to argue that we can't use suicide or killings as a tool to show a point in philosophical arguments.
Again, no. See my latest post in that thread.
Your experiment relies on a God and heaven and hell and all that trash to exist to provide evidence that a God and heaven and hell exist so suggesting it to someone that is skeptical of all that is pretty dumb. That would be like me suggesting to you to do an experiment that first assumes the earth is round in order to show you the earth is round.
-
It's such a stupid suggestion anyway, so it really does not bother me.
It is interesting to note, though, that the two people that condone suggesting a stranger on the internet commit a mass murder/suicide are religious.
And they think atheists lack a moral compass. ::) Fuck me.
-
You conceded that the argument had merit when you suggested for me to do it myself.
You were repeatedly stamping your feet in that thread and demanding "hard" evidence. A way to determine your query and visit the afterlife directly was then provided to you. You will either experience an afterlife or you won't.
-
You conceded that the argument had merit when you suggested for me to do it myself.
That's not how that works.
You were repeatedly stamping your feet in that thread and demanding "hard" evidence. A way to visit the afterlife directly was then provided to you. You will either experience an afterlife or you won't.
LOL, no I wasn't. I asked for hard evidence once then you got in full stupid mode and suggested to a stranger he go commit a mass murder/suicide, then mentioning it again in response to your suggestions on how good your idea was. Not accepting that is hardly foot stamping. Fuck me again! You're the most dishonest person on this site.
US:
Me - Can I get some hard evidence for God
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
Me - No. I was asking for evidence for a God.
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
Me - That's stupid and not evidence for God.
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
...
....
-
That's not how that works.
If it was meritless you wouldn't have suggested that I do it.
US:
Me - Can I get some hard evidence for God
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
Me - No. I was asking for evidence for a God.
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
Me - That's stupid and not evidence for God.
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
...
....
God is definitely a part of religion and the Bible, hate to break it to you. If you are suffering in damnation it would be pretty good evidence that something designed that, and that supernatural entities exist.
You were definitely demanding for a way to see the nature of God for yourself, in a form of "hard" evidence. I'm not sure how harder firsthand experience of the afterlife can get. If you didn't want to go to that extreme I also suggested reading books about it.
-
Tom, I don't think that the question in this thread is whether or not the experiment is valid. Rather, the question is whether or not advocating murder and/or suicide is a violation of the forum rules.
-
Tom, I don't think that the question in this thread is whether or not the experiment is valid. Rather, the question is whether or not advocating murder and/or suicide is a violation of the forum rules.
Actually the OP concedes that this doesn't break the forum rules:
And no, this isn't exactly prohibited by the rules as written
It isn't strictly against the rules as written
The OP wants the moderators to implement debate constraints on making certain kind of arguments:
I think a mod ought to step in and put a halt to this kind of I-dare-you method of arguing.
As well, he wants debate constraints on what he personally finds to be:
creepy and unsettling
Also, this is this person:
Mar 26 04:19:43 <Saddam> Parsifal: You should kill yourself
Mar 26 04:19:44 <Saddam> js
Mar 28 13:15:25 <Saddam> Parsifal: You should kill yourself
Mar 28 13:18:04 <Saddam> Parsifal: Kill yourself
And then, after having put me on ignore (for the record, I hadn't said anything):
Mar 28 13:22:05 <Saddam> Parsifal should kill himself, though
Mar 28 13:22:25 <Saddam> I don't know if he's even talking
-
it's obviously not a good-faith argument
Actually, it is. If someone is jumping up and down saying that there is no way to get evidence for religion, the argument I provided, while extreme, successfully shows that statement to be incorrect.
And then they could come back and relay their findings to you on this forum, yeah? Not sure good debates typically involve suggesting suicide for obvious reasons.
-
Tom, I don't think that the question in this thread is whether or not the experiment is valid. Rather, the question is whether or not advocating murder and/or suicide is a violation of the forum rules.
Actually the OP concedes that this doesn't break the forum rules:
And no, this isn't exactly prohibited by the rules as written
It isn't strictly against the rules as written
That has never stopped the mods before.
-
it's obviously not a good-faith argument
Actually, it is. If someone is jumping up and down saying that there is no way to get evidence for religion, the argument I provided, while extreme, successfully shows that statement to be incorrect.
And then they could come back and relay their findings to you on this forum, yeah? Not sure good debates typically involve suggesting suicide for obvious reasons.
He was interested in seeing the findings himself, so it wouldn't be necessary to come back and tell me about it. It was also not necessary to do it, only that a point was made that it is possible to gather evidence on this. I also communicated that I thought it would be abhorrent for anyone to do it, and that it was merely answering the query.
If the evidence is in the afterlife a debate might involve suicide or death, yes. The concept of death and suicide and sin can be a theme in philosophy discussions. Demanding that you can see "hard evidence" for something spiritual or the work of something spiritual might involve a suggestion which involves death, so it shouldn't be surprising that it came up.
-
That's not how that works.
If it was meritless you wouldn't have suggested that I do it.
I didn't, I said I guess you wont do it.
US:
Me - Can I get some hard evidence for God
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
Me - No. I was asking for evidence for a God.
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
Me - That's stupid and not evidence for God.
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
...
Tom - go commit murder and kill yourself - that will prove the bible.
Me - I guess you wont do it.
Tom - Ha! I win!!!
....
God is definitely a part of religion and the Bible, hate to break it to you. If you are suffering in damnation it would be pretty good evidence that something designed that, and that supernatural entities exist.
The bible exists. I can find evidence of it. I can't find evidence for God. The bible could easily have been created in the complete absence of God. Your suggested criminal activity is not evidence of God. It's sad that you can't see that.
This forum is not the place to continue this discussion. I'm out.
-
Demanding that you can see "hard evidence" for something spiritual or the work of something spiritual might involve a suggestion which involves death, so it shouldn't be surprising that it came up.
In that case, it's very weird how telling someone to kill themselves never once came up in my study of world religions course at uni.
-
i should clarify that i agree with saddam in that i had a similarly visceral "that's a super uncool thing to say" reaction to tom's initial kill-people-then-yourself post, but i probably don't think it deserves an action. it's just tommy being 3edgy5me.
-
It's such a stupid suggestion anyway, so it really does not bother me.
It is interesting to note, though, that the two people that condone suggesting a stranger on the internet commit a mass murder/suicide are religious.
And they think atheists lack a moral compass. ::) Fuck me.
Are you counting me one of those people?
Tom’s suggestion was ridiculous.
It was along the lines of “if you don’t believe jumping off high buildings could harm you or other people then push someone off the Empire State Building and then jump off yourself”.
No one is going to take that seriously or do an experiment like that.
Tom is simply saying there is a way to tell if the message of the Bible is true. Do something where you die and do so in a way which would condemn you to eternal damnation. Who is going to do that?
His suggestion can’t be taken seriously. It’s a stupid thought experiment. Do you condemn Schrodinger for animal cruelty?
-
It's such a stupid suggestion anyway, so it really does not bother me.
It is interesting to note, though, that the two people that condone suggesting a stranger on the internet commit a mass murder/suicide are religious.
And they think atheists lack a moral compass. ::) Fuck me.
Are you counting me one of those people?
Tom’s suggestion was ridiculous.
It was along the lines of “if you don’t believe jumping off high buildings could harm you or other people then push someone off the Empire State Building and then jump off yourself”.
No one is going to take that seriously or do an experiment like that.
OK but, seems a tad risky to assume the people on the illustrious tfesdotorg are 100% stable and would never commit violence. Probably they won't, but why say something so gross for a nonsense debate tactic?
His suggestion can’t be taken seriously. It’s a stupid thought experiment. Do you condemn Schrodinger for animal cruelty?
Schrodinger didn't tell people to go kill cats. Also, maybe you can stretch your imagination a bit here, but school shootings are a horrible reality of living in the United States so we're a bit sensitive to jokes or bad faith arguments referencing them.
For the record, I'm with Gary. It's a gross thing to say but not worthy of discipline. Just Tom making a bad argument because he's bad at debate.
-
Putting my moderator hat on for a moment: there isn't an obvious correct course of action. We have 2 conflicting arguments here:
- Saddam's usual manufactured outrage
- Tom's bizzare argument
Neither is made from the position of good faith, and neither should be taken seriously. However, continuing that line of questioning is not helpful to the discussion, and at this point it only serves to be unproductive. So, my suggestion and polite request is that both sides drop this line of inquiry and focus on something more productive.
Tom - it seems to me that you've made your point, and that the sum total of people's responses to it has been exhausted. It seems that some people are finding the subject of mass muder and suicide to be sensitive, so could you please them do the courtesy of dropping it?
Others - please could you make it easier to drop the subject by not fuelling it further?
I hope we can all reach a consensus on this. There is no other solution here that would keep everyone happy, and any forceful action from the mods would set an uncomfortable precedent for the future. Let's just move on, okay?
-
- Saddam's usual manufactured outrage
Neither is made from the position of good faith, and neither should be taken seriously.
I honestly don't know what I've said or done to deserve a response like this. I never said that I was "outraged," I'm not asking for anyone to be banned, and this is a perfectly reasonable concern to have.
However, continuing that line of questioning is not productive to the discussion, and at this point it only serves to be unproductive. So, my suggestion and polite request is that both sides frop this line of inquiry and focus on something more productive.
Tom - it seems to me that you've made your point, and that the sum total of people's responses to it has been exhausted. It seems that some people are finding the subject of mass muder and suicide to be sensitive, so could you please them do the courtesy of dropping it?
Others - please could you make it easier to drop the subject by not fuelling it further?
I hope we can all reach a consensus on this. There is no other solution here that would keep everyone happy, and any forceful action from the mods would set an uncomfortable precedent for the future. Let's just move on, okay?
Like, I agree with all this. I think it's more than fair enough to ask this weird argument to be wrapped up. You didn't need to come in here swinging and taking weird, unnecessary potshots at me.
-
Like, I agree with all this. I think it's more than fair enough to ask this weird argument to be wrapped up. You didn't need to come in here swinging and taking weird, unnecessary potshots at me.
Please stop. There is nothing to be gained by perpetuating this discussion any further.
-
Probably they won't, but why say something so gross for a nonsense debate tactic?
Tom is as Tom does...
But Pete's suggestion seems sensible, so I won't labour the point.