Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Supernatural

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:28:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Our means of understanding the universe are limited to our 5 senses. Therefore, every observation, conclusion, and logical principle we use fall under these natural limitations. If you decide to question naturalism, and question the trustworthiness of human senses in interpreting truth, then you destroy the foundation on which you can make any kind of argument about anything. By questioning naturalism and human senses, you question logic....and by questioning logic, you leave yourself intellectually unarmed.

So, one who doubts science on that basis can't actually argue for the truth of theism, since that would presume logic. Arguing for supernatural things will therefore always be contradictory.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:31:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:36:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:31:08 PM, bossyburrito wrote:


Gileandos has shown me that before as evidence that the red sea really parted for Moses.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:39:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:36:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/11/2012 3:31:08 PM, bossyburrito wrote:


Gileandos has shown me that before as evidence that the red sea really parted for Moses.

Wut
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:41:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:39:27 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 6/11/2012 3:36:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/11/2012 3:31:08 PM, bossyburrito wrote:


Gileandos has shown me that before as evidence that the red sea really parted for Moses.

Wut

I had the same reaction. Not a very convincing video, but interesting
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 9:12:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Our means of understanding the universe are limited to our 5 senses. Therefore, every observation, conclusion, and logical principle we use fall under these natural limitations. If you decide to question naturalism, and question the trustworthiness of human senses in interpreting truth, then you destroy the foundation on which you can make any kind of argument about anything. By questioning naturalism and human senses, you question logic....and by questioning logic, you leave yourself intellectually unarmed.

So, one who doubts science on that basis can't actually argue for the truth of theism, since that would presume logic. Arguing for supernatural things will therefore always be contradictory.

The Fool: can I join in some friendly, respecful philosophy.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 10:14:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Define "naturalism" then we can talk. Right now, I can see a confusion of concepts/potential equivocation between naturalism, empiricism, and science.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:20:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Our means of understanding the universe are limited to our 5 senses. Therefore, every observation, conclusion, and logical principle we use fall under these natural limitations. If you decide to question naturalism, and question the trustworthiness of human senses in interpreting truth, then you destroy the foundation on which you can make any kind of argument about anything. By questioning naturalism and human senses, you question logic....and by questioning logic, you leave yourself intellectually unarmed.

So, one who doubts science on that basis can't actually argue for the truth of theism, since that would presume logic. Arguing for supernatural things will therefore always be contradictory.

Actually, C.S. Lewis would argue just the opposite. If naturalism is true and our thoughts are merely the result of neurons firing, then we could never trust our brains to tell us anything, even that we arose naturally.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 11:26:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:20:45 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/11/2012 3:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Our means of understanding the universe are limited to our 5 senses. Therefore, every observation, conclusion, and logical principle we use fall under these natural limitations. If you decide to question naturalism, and question the trustworthiness of human senses in interpreting truth, then you destroy the foundation on which you can make any kind of argument about anything. By questioning naturalism and human senses, you question logic....and by questioning logic, you leave yourself intellectually unarmed.

So, one who doubts science on that basis can't actually argue for the truth of theism, since that would presume logic. Arguing for supernatural things will therefore always be contradictory.

Actually, C.S. Lewis would argue just the opposite. If naturalism is true and our thoughts are merely the result of neurons firing, then we could never trust our brains to tell us anything, even that we arose naturally.

Well lets assume that if naturalism is true, we couldn't trust our brains. Now, imagine naturalism is true. This means, that we cannot trust your above comment, because if came from a brain that we can't trust....Thus, your argument is self-defeating and it just leads to absurdities.

We live in a natural world, so I trust a natural mind over a non-natural mind in a natural world.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 10:43:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nature is simply the way things are, whether we perceive it accurately or not. Supernatural is an absurdity.

The universe is obviously different from how we perceive it. You can be a "naturalist" without being a naive realist.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 10:58:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Our means of understanding the universe are limited to our 5 senses.

That's an assumption. As far as we know, our capacity to sense and navigate some of the forces we've discovered is limited to our five senses. However, there may be more to consciousness than we currently officially accept, and continued evidence of this notion has prevented the exploration of the subject from completely dying in the scientific world.

This is not to mention the fact that a great deal of knowledge that we currently retain is a priori in origin (based on logical inference) rather than a posteriori (based on empirical observation), and if you really think about it, based on the way humans normally learn, a priori knowledge almost always precedes a posteriori knowledge. A priori is required to understand a posteriori.

Therefore, every observation, conclusion, and logical principle we use fall under these natural limitations.

There's another assumption here -- that these senses are static. They change over the course of our lives, and undoubtedly, they change with each generation, as well. I truly wonder how we would really measure up against those people from 300 - 500 years ago. I mean, that's a mere 4 - 5 generations, but something tells me that they're markedly different, based on the punctilio standards against which we judge one another.

If you decide to question naturalism, and question the trustworthiness of human senses in interpreting truth, then you destroy the foundation on which you can make any kind of argument about anything. By questioning naturalism and human senses, you question logic....and by questioning logic, you leave yourself intellectually unarmed.

So, one who doubts science on that basis can't actually argue for the truth of theism, since that would presume logic. Arguing for supernatural things will therefore always be contradictory.

Yeah, I'd say this is true, and it's a pretty good argument. I agree that one shouldn't simply discard logic in attempting to prove a premise, because that just kind of concedes defeat in a way.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 11:26:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 3:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Our means of understanding the universe are limited to our 5 senses. Therefore, every observation, conclusion, and logical principle we use fall under these natural limitations. If you decide to question naturalism, and question the trustworthiness of human senses in interpreting truth, then you destroy the foundation on which you can make any kind of argument about anything. By questioning naturalism and human senses, you question logic....and by questioning logic, you leave yourself intellectually unarmed.

So, one who doubts science on that basis can't actually argue for the truth of theism, since that would presume logic. Arguing for supernatural things will therefore always be contradictory.

You're question is presupposiing verificationism which is a philosophy that collapsed back in the 60's.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 11:32:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 11:26:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/11/2012 11:20:45 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/11/2012 3:28:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
Our means of understanding the universe are limited to our 5 senses. Therefore, every observation, conclusion, and logical principle we use fall under these natural limitations. If you decide to question naturalism, and question the trustworthiness of human senses in interpreting truth, then you destroy the foundation on which you can make any kind of argument about anything. By questioning naturalism and human senses, you question logic....and by questioning logic, you leave yourself intellectually unarmed.

So, one who doubts science on that basis can't actually argue for the truth of theism, since that would presume logic. Arguing for supernatural things will therefore always be contradictory.

Actually, C.S. Lewis would argue just the opposite. If naturalism is true and our thoughts are merely the result of neurons firing, then we could never trust our brains to tell us anything, even that we arose naturally.

Well lets assume that if naturalism is true, we couldn't trust our brains. Now, imagine naturalism is true. This means, that we cannot trust your above comment, because if came from a brain that we can't trust....Thus, your argument is self-defeating and it just leads to absurdities.

We live in a natural world, so I trust a natural mind over a non-natural mind in a natural world.

Don't you argue there's a problem of evil? If there's a problem of evil there's a problem of pain, if there's pain there's irreducible quale, if there's irreducible quale there's mind, if there's mind, naturalism can't be given a serious hearing.

But if naturalism is true, we wouldn't have any good reason to believe it, or anything else for that matter... not a problem in supernatualism (which includes nature, not just supernatural, obv.)
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 11:33:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 10:43:27 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Nature is simply the way things are, whether we perceive it accurately or not. Supernatural is an absurdity.

The universe is obviously different from how we perceive it. You can be a "naturalist" without being a naive realist.

How is supernaturalism an absurdity? There doesn't seem anything incoherent about Mind or irreducible quale.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 11:47:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@ra

To claim the supernatural is to say that there are elements in tbe universe tbat violate tbe lsw of causality.

Some people interpret quantum physics to disprove determinism, and some people interpret the experience of free will to be evidence against determinism. I say these people are not aware of the variable unaccounted for, and tbe processes that make them tick.

The people who don't accept causality come off as arrogant and foolish to me. They undermine tbe beauty and complexity of chaos with their superstition.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 12:30:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 11:47:13 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
@ra



To claim the supernatural is to say that there are elements in tbe universe tbat violate tbe lsw of causality.

There's a misunderstanding afoot, the 4 types of causes are material, formal, efficient & final; the latter two fit the best with intentionality which bespeaks Mind.

Now I'm not sure what you mean by elements but let's suppose you mean enities. & if by causality you mean physical laws then that's irrelevant to supernaturalism. For physical laws aren't logical laws-- that's where I think your misunderstanding lies.

Some people interpret quantum physics to disprove determinism, and some people interpret the experience of free will to be evidence against determinism. I say these people are not aware of the variable unaccounted for, and tbe processes that make them tick.

What, then, is your proposed, "variable unaccounted for"? Also, I affirm physical determinism, but not mental determinism- I think it's obvious physical states may influence (& even influence heavily) mental states to some degree, but there's a huge burden of proof needed for one to say physical states determine mental states.

The people who don't accept causality come off as arrogant and foolish to me. They undermine the beauty and complexity of chaos with their superstition.

I'm not concerned with emotional content.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 12:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 12:30:48 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
There's a misunderstanding afoot, the 4 types of causes are material, formal, efficient & final; the latter two fit the best with intentionality which bespeaks Mind.


Explain this to me

Now I'm not sure what you mean by elements but let's suppose you mean enities. & if by causality you mean physical laws then that's irrelevant to supernaturalism. For physical laws aren't logical laws-- that's where I think your misunderstanding lies.


I assert that there is nothing that can be considered "supernatural", because if something is above nature, it can't exist. Something that seems supernatural has to be natural. Even the mind is controlled by natural deterministic processes, and to believe otherwise is nothing more than a desire to be something more than what we are, fleshy robots .

What, then, is your proposed, "variable unaccounted for"? Also, I affirm physical determinism, but not mental determinism- I think it's obvious physical states may influence (& even influence heavily) mental states to some degree, but there's a huge burden of proof needed for one to say physical states determine mental states.


We perceive free will, but that is only because the limitations of our perception prevent us from seeing the variable unaccounted for that guides what we do. The variable unaccounted for is everything we cannot perceive and detect. It is chaos.
The people who don't accept causality come off as arrogant and foolish to me. They undermine the beauty and complexity of chaos with their superstition.

I'm not concerned with emotional content.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 12:57:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, please don't break up posts with quotes, makes it hard for me to respond on phone.

Thankee
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 1:07:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 12:56:18 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 6/12/2012 12:30:48 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:
There's a misunderstanding afoot, the 4 types of causes are material, formal, efficient & final; the latter two fit the best with intentionality which bespeaks Mind.


Explain this to me

Wiki Aristotle's four causes.

Now I'm not sure what you mean by elements but let's suppose you mean enities. & if by causality you mean physical laws then that's irrelevant to supernaturalism. For physical laws aren't logical laws-- that's where I think your misunderstanding lies.


I assert that there is nothing that can be considered "supernatural", because if something is above nature, it can't exist. Something that seems supernatural has to be natural. Even the mind is controlled by natural deterministic processes, and to believe otherwise is nothing more than a desire to be something more than what we are, fleshy robots .

In bold, that's not a reason, that's a reassertion of your claim,, which makes your argument trivial. Eg, "if it is raining, then it is raining."

The rest of the paragraph you're merely naming claims, not presenting arguments supporting thse claims, so I can't take them seriously.

Anyhow, what I mean by supernatural is simply that which is transcendant from material / physical occasions.

What, then, is your proposed, "variable unaccounted for"? Also, I affirm physical determinism, but not mental determinism- I think it's obvious physical states may influence (& even influence heavily) mental states to some degree, but there's a huge burden of proof needed for one to say physical states determine mental states.


We perceive free will, but that is only because the limitations of our perception prevent us from seeing the variable unaccounted for that guides what we do.

Which is an argument from ignorance. I grant that we perceive free will just like we percieve the external world to be real, & so without any defeater for such a perception we're rational to affirm its truth.

All you posit as a defeater is that there could be a variable unaccounted for... well no really? Haha

The variable unaccounted for is everything we cannot perceive and detect. It is chaos.

You're still presupposing physicalism & materialism without argument, that's one. Two is the fact that you're still arguing from ignorance. How about some positive justification for doubting our perception of freedom and supernaturalism?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 4:04:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What do you have substantiating your argument? I'm just telling it like it is.

Aristotle is a boob, and I'd rather hear what you are talking about, not what someone thinks someone else was talking about. I looked it up, and I don't find these arbitrary "causes" to be accurate or even meaningful.

So, do you consider the things swimming around in your head to be supernatural? What makes you think that your thoughts don't arise out of forces acting on other forces? What makes you think this is somehow disconnected from the external world? Your "mind" interacts with the physical world, the physical world effects your mind. It is not above nature.

Do you consider computers to be supernatural as well?

And I'm not claiming that their could be things beyond our perception and omprehension, I'm making tbe claim that these things are definitely there. If you don't see the truth in that, you should understand why I think those who deny the deterministic nature of the universe, and yes, their own consciousness are arrogant. Tell me what exactly your dispute is. I am making no logical fallacy by admitting my ignorance. You on the other hand are babbling about things outside of your own epistemelogical limitations with a degree of certainty that seems both unjustified and... irrational.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:15:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 4:04:55 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
What do you have substantiating your argument? I'm just telling it like it is.

Aristotle is a boob, and I'd rather hear what you are talking about, not what someone thinks someone else was talking about. I looked it up, and I don't find these arbitrary "causes" to be accurate or even meaningful.

So, do you consider the things swimming around in your head to be supernatural? What makes you think that your thoughts don't arise out of forces acting on other forces? What makes you think this is somehow disconnected from the external world? Your "mind" interacts with the physical world, the physical world effects your mind. It is not above nature.

Do you consider computers to be supernatural as well?

And I'm not claiming that their could be things beyond our perception and omprehension, I'm making tbe claim that these things are definitely there. If you don't see the truth in that, you should understand why I think those who deny the deterministic nature of the universe, and yes, their own consciousness are arrogant. Tell me what exactly your dispute is. I am making no logical fallacy by admitting my ignorance. You on the other hand are babbling about things outside of your own epistemelogical limitations with a degree of certainty that seems both unjustified and... irrational.

"Just telling it like it is" is a rock music video, not a philosophical discussion. Science is founded upon the very causes you mock, and your only arguments against them is that Aristotle is a boob?

My mind interacts with the physical world, yes, but it's not physical- no amount of physical can be aware of a pink elephant when one thinks of a pink elephant or experience quale.

Computers are repetitive machines created by mind. Of course I affirm that natural things are there, I don't affirm there isn't the supernatural. You claim not to know or to be agnostic. Good argument.

On the other hand, you put words in my mouth by claiming I know with high certainty that God & other minds exist... non-sense, certainty isn't required, indeed I can even be wrong about what I'm certain about.

If God is immediate to me, or properly grounded in my basic beliefs, then my epistemic situation for knowing God exists & has a relationship with me is quite good. For I can be said to know God exists within the absence of any (as apparent) defeater for my experience of God.

Obviously that's only how I know Christianity to be true, it's not how I can show Christianity to be true, what I can do is show through arguments & evidence that it's reasonable to believe Christianity, and also show how it has a high preference given our existential situation. Ultimately, however, one knows God through His immediate witness.

So for you to accuse me of speaking outside of my epistemic position is to confuse my approach to the matter.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:30:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You lack the comprehension skills necessary to have a meaningful discussion with.

I'll talk with you when you engage me honestly and actually address what I'm saying instead of getting offended to the point that it handicaps your ability to get to the crux of what I'm saying.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 5:35:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, I know you don't know what you are talking about. I didn't even say anything about Christianity and religion. You don't have the slightest clue as to what I'm saying, because you already think you know.

Quit acting a fool. You want to have a discussion of philosophical significance? You have to pull your head out of your arse. Everyone haz to do it at some point. Gotta grow a pair, and be honest.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 6:02:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:35:15 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Also, I know you don't know what you are talking about. I didn't even say anything about Christianity and religion. You don't have the slightest clue as to what I'm saying, because you already think you know.

Quit acting a fool. You want to have a discussion of philosophical significance? You have to pull your head out of your arse. Everyone haz to do it at some point. Gotta grow a pair, and be honest.

Even with the fairest & most gracious reading, all I can pick out as an argument against my point here is that Christianity is irrelevant to supernaturalism.

Which is ludicrous, actually. Christianity is a form of theism & affirms both naturalism & supernaturalism. I'm a Christian and I defend it's truth. Anytime you would like to debate it, it would appear as an easy win for me if your rhetoric here is anything like your debate rhetoric.

Now I'm open to whatever evidence you have, whether rational or empirical, that would deny my views. You're right I think I know but that's not a requisite to knowing. I can know something without thinking I know it, so thinking I know Christianity is, again, irrelevant to it's truth value.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 6:07:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:30:06 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
You lack the comprehension skills necessary to have a meaningful discussion with.

I'll talk with you when you engage me honestly and actually address what I'm saying instead of getting offended to the point that it handicaps your ability to get to the crux of what I'm saying.

What made you think I'm offended? I'm not in the least bit offended friend. Further, I'm quite sure I comprehend you ad hominem remarks and claims without support. Those are tragically easy to comprehend in fact. Now I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have at least a shred of reason for making your claims.

I intend to (& in fact requested them) give your reasons a fair hearing... but I cannot be accused of not comprehending such reasons, or getting offended by them, if they weren't given in the first place- again I patiently await the support of your claims sir.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 6:49:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:30:06 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
You lack the comprehension skills necessary to have a meaningful discussion with.

I'll talk with you when you engage me honestly and actually address what I'm saying instead of getting offended to the point that it handicaps your ability to get to the crux of what I'm saying.

Uh...

It actually very much so appears to be the other way around; it seems as if you're not understanding or even trying to make an effort to understand what ReasonAlliance is saying. If anyone needs to pull the head of their butt it's you. Unfortunately, your head appears to be so far up your butt that you cannot even realize it.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 7:13:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 6:49:27 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/12/2012 5:30:06 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
You lack the comprehension skills necessary to have a meaningful discussion with.

I'll talk with you when you engage me honestly and actually address what I'm saying instead of getting offended to the point that it handicaps your ability to get to the crux of what I'm saying.

Uh...

It actually very much so appears to be the other way around; it seems as if you're not understanding or even trying to make an effort to understand what ReasonAlliance is saying. If anyone needs to pull the head of their butt it's you. Unfortunately, your head appears to be so far up your butt that you cannot even realize it.

The Fool: <(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 9:16:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/12/2012 5:35:15 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Also, I know you don't know what you are talking about. I didn't even say anything about Christianity and religion. You don't have the slightest clue as to what I'm saying, because you already think you know.

Quit acting a fool.<(XD)

You want to have a discussion of philosophical significance? You have to pull your head out of your arse. Everyone haz to do it at some point. Gotta grow a pair, and be honest.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL