[honk]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[AATW]

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[honk]

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.

[garygreen]

i agree with honk. i think it's extremely not okay to encourage people you barely know to kill themselves.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[BillO]

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.

[BillO]

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.

[BillO]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[BillO]

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.
...
....

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[markjo]

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 Bishop]

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

[rooster]

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.

[markjo]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[BillO]

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.

[rooster]

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.