Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

This forum

Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 7:15:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

I often wonder the Same thing, but my conclusion is because people don't are what another person thinks and therefore will say whatever they wish. Even IRL this topic of religious causes division in multiple ways. :/
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 7:33:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Ask bulproof in his question & answers topic :D
Never fart near dog
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2014 9:24:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:33:58 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Ask bulproof in his question & answers topic :D

Lol I just might
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 1:49:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 6:56:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion is a bare assertion.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 7:39:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 1:49:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)

And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 7:41:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Is a bare assertion necessarily uncivil?
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 7:56:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 1:49:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)

That was my call.

Sorry i was late. ROFL.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 8:15:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religious people live here.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 8:19:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 7:39:52 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 1:49:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)

And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?

Zero evidence for, zero evidence against. The claims of religion, however, come from what they perceive as "divine authority." We've talked about this, before. Discovery of gawd I can deal with hearing. Religion MUST go, if mankind is to survive.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 8:28:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 7:39:52 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 1:49:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)

And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?

Evidence is evidence, but it"s who"s interpretation do you trust or believe? And how can you be so sure that your own judgements of who to believe and or trust (faith) is trustworthy and is the truth? We all see the same existence, why do we trust different versions of what it is to be in it?
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 12:54:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 8:19:15 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/18/2014 7:39:52 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 1:49:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)

And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?

Zero evidence for, zero evidence against. The claims of religion, however, come from what they perceive as "divine authority." We've talked about this, before. Discovery of gawd I can deal with hearing. Religion MUST go, if mankind is to survive.

You are kinda good at moving goalposts. This point isn't worth holding you to the fire.
But don't you think you're being a little dramatic?
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 12:58:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 12:54:30 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 8:19:15 AM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/18/2014 7:39:52 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 1:49:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)

And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?

Zero evidence for, zero evidence against. The claims of religion, however, come from what they perceive as "divine authority." We've talked about this, before. Discovery of gawd I can deal with hearing. Religion MUST go, if mankind is to survive.

You are kinda good at moving goalposts. This point isn't worth holding you to the fire.
But don't you think you're being a little dramatic?

What goal post was moved? I've never wavered in the fact that it's religion that I hate, not gawd. The gawd that I deny is by religious definition.

It can be considered dramatic, but this is sometimes necessary when attempting to make masses re-think that which they have assumed, for centuries on end...
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 1:24:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Religion takes up where knowledge and the illusion of certitude can no longer carry on. Speculative assertions become the ground upon which we must then walk.

Interestingly, it's very little different from the speculative assertions of many of today's theoretical physicists.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 1:27:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 12:58:11 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/21/2014 12:54:30 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)
And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?


Zero evidence for, zero evidence against. The claims of religion, however, come from what they perceive as "divine authority." We've talked about this, before. Discovery of gawd I can deal with hearing. Religion MUST go, if mankind is to survive.

You are kinda good at moving goalposts. This point isn't worth holding you to the fire.

What goal post was moved?

Look at it with all the other stuff removed.

Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer.

And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?

Zero evidence for, zero evidence against.

You admit that you think BOTH have nothing but bare assertions to offer. But, religion is different because

The claims of religion, however, come from what they perceive as "divine authority."

So, having nothing but bare assertions to offer is fine if you're atheist?? Since it is YOU who claim logic and reason, isn't it strange that just like religion, you also have
nothing but bare assertions to offer? But your nothing is ok because you don't claim it's from God.

The goalpost was that atheism also has nothing but bare assertions to offer. You tried to switched goalposts with the caveat that the claims come from different places!
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 3:14:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 1:27:42 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/21/2014 12:58:11 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/21/2014 12:54:30 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)
And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?


Zero evidence for, zero evidence against. The claims of religion, however, come from what they perceive as "divine authority." We've talked about this, before. Discovery of gawd I can deal with hearing. Religion MUST go, if mankind is to survive.

You are kinda good at moving goalposts. This point isn't worth holding you to the fire.

What goal post was moved?

Look at it with all the other stuff removed.

Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer.

And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?

Zero evidence for, zero evidence against.

You admit that you think BOTH have nothing but bare assertions to offer. But, religion is different because

Incorrect, but only as far as being interpretive... The claim of existence is a bare assertion, but with that assertion come a lot of other claims and assumed privilege. The claim of NONexistence is equally bare, but only insofar as knowing that there is no gawd, for a fact, would require universal, absolute knowledge.

The claims of religion, however, come from what they perceive as "divine authority."

So, having nothing but bare assertions to offer is fine if you're atheist?? Since it is YOU who claim logic and reason, isn't it strange that just like religion, you also have
nothing but bare assertions to offer? But your nothing is ok because you don't claim it's from God.

Bare assertions are not good. Period. I'm not an atheist. I reject the claim of gawd's existence as defined by any human assertion ever made. None of them have ever made sense, and none of them have any evidence to substantiate such an existence. Only "inductive" evidence even comes close, and not very close, at that. I don't make assertions... I reject the assertions made by theists. There is a difference, and you know it. I reject those assertions because they don't make any sense.

The goalpost was that atheism also has nothing but bare assertions to offer. You tried to switched goalposts with the caveat that the claims come from different places!

I'm not switching any goalposts, at all. Atheism is, indeed, a bare assertion, in general statement. With respect to directly rejecting the assertions of theism, there is plenty of reason and logic. There is, however, only reason and logic with respect to asserted deities. Those deities that have been asserted by "holy" text proponents have been rejected by both atheists and agnostics because the texts make no sense, describe gawds that cannot exist within reasonable terms, and are used to create religions that make bare assertions with respect to divine authority in their involvement in ruling other humans. So, no... the goal posts were not moved. Your perception of the "goal posts" shifted, as you moved...
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 4:24:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Several reasons, for starters:

(1) Nutcases like bornofgod and skinker (aka biomystic) whose entire philosophy is built around pathological narcissism. In other words, "dump everything else, and listen to me - and what I say is right because it has been revealed solely to me."

(2) Constant irrelevant comments by atheists who, while they may have a decent grasp of certain law and theories of science, elect to discuss their theories here on the religion forum.

(3) Fanatics who can state quite well their personal religious theories, but cannot participate in any discussion of those theories, especially the drawbacks, because they simply do not know enough - or because the theory is illogical to start with.

(4) Overuse of the broad, sweeping words such as omnipotent, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, omniscience, and the like for the sole reason of creating confusing and contradictory scenarios.

(5) Overuse of links which hardly anyone ever reads. It's as if, "Well, I can't type out a coherent answer - but go here."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 5:18:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

We just had a civil discussion without bare assertions on the Big Bang.

Also, not everything requires evidence in order for it to be considered correct. God in classical theology is considered divinely simple and therefore able to be seen as a feature of the world without evidences.
E_Pluribus_Unum
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 6:03:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

It's probably because everyone who posts here are idiots. (See what I did there?)
Loveshismom
Posts: 238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2014 6:10:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because each of them has a MEATBALL!!!
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 8:58:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/21/2014 3:14:04 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/21/2014 1:27:42 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/21/2014 12:58:11 PM, irreverent_god wrote:
At 7/21/2014 12:54:30 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".)
And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?


Zero evidence for, zero evidence against. The claims of religion, however, come from what they perceive as "divine authority." We've talked about this, before. Discovery of gawd I can deal with hearing. Religion MUST go, if mankind is to survive.

You are kinda good at moving goalposts. This point isn't worth holding you to the fire.

What goal post was moved?

Look at it with all the other stuff removed.

Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer.

And the idea that "God does not exist" is laden with evidence?

Zero evidence for, zero evidence against.

You admit that you think BOTH have nothing but bare assertions to offer. But, religion is different because

Incorrect, but only as far as being interpretive... The claim of existence is a bare assertion, but with that assertion come a lot of other claims and assumed privilege.

You mentioned no other claims in your reply. Plus, if the original claim has no evidence for or against, it cannot be influenced by other claims. Atheists also come with a lot of other claims and assumed privilege. Your reply was duplicitous.

The claim of NONexistence is equally bare, but only insofar as knowing that there is no gawd, for a fact, would require universal, absolute knowledge.

Then it is worse than the theists claim in that it is impossible to know it is true, even if it was true! At least it is possible to know if there IS a God. But your claim above does not affect the question of why we can't have civil discussions, and is also immaterial (and therefore equivalent to) the atheists claim that there is no God. Your reply was duplicitous.

The claims of religion, however, come from what they perceive as "divine authority."

So, having nothing but bare assertions to offer is fine if you're atheist?? Since it is YOU who claim logic and reason, isn't it strange that just like religion, you also have
nothing but bare assertions to offer? But your nothing is ok because you don't claim it's from God.

Bare assertions are not good. Period. I'm not an atheist.

Yes. You say you are an anti-theist. But just as you have decided to think that Christianity is the same as the Church, I have decided to think that atheists and anti-theists are the same thing. There is no real difference there.

I reject the claim of gawd's existence as defined by any human assertion ever made. None of them have ever made sense, and none of them have any evidence to substantiate such an existence.

I see that no matter the subject, you must have at least one rant about God's non-existence and how you are super-rational for rejecting belief in Him. Can we get back on topic?

I don't make assertions... I reject the assertions made by theists.

You do both. You make assertions, like the two above. And you certainly accept the main claim made by atheists though you freely admit it has no evidence for or against.

There is a difference, and you know it. I reject those assertions because they don't make any sense.

Yes, there is a difference, but not one that makes a difference to the question in the OP or to your initial reply to the OP. The OP asked why couldn't we have civil discussions without bare assertions. You blame religion, though you admit atheists also have bare assertions. Do only theists make assertions in the forum? When I point this out to you, your answer is that the claims of theists and atheists, though both bare assertions, are different. The only thing questioned by the OP was bare assertions. Where they come from is immaterial.

A non-duplicitous reply would have been like this,

Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "faith".) and atheism has nothing but bare assertions to offer. (They like to call it "reason".)

That is what we get if the anti-theist bias is removed.

The goalpost was that atheism also has nothing but bare assertions to offer. You tried to switched goalposts with the caveat that the claims come from different places!

I'm not switching any goalposts, at all. Atheism is, indeed, a bare assertion, in general statement. With respect to directly rejecting the assertions of theism, there is plenty of reason and logic.

The same logic rejects ALL bare assertions which have no evidence.

There is, however, only reason and logic with respect to asserted deities. Those deities that have been asserted by "holy" text proponents have been rejected by both atheists and agnostics because the texts make no sense, describe gawds that cannot exist within reasonable terms, and are used to create religions that make bare assertions with respect to divine authority in their involvement in ruling other humans.

All of this is off topic to the OP and is simply an opportunity for you to vent your spleen. Can we get back on topic?

So, no... the goal posts were not moved. Your perception of the "goal posts" shifted, as you moved...

Here in the religious forum, it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions because religion has nothing but bare assertions to offer.

That is what you said. Does that cover it?

Atheism, which you agree also has nothing but bare assertions to offer, plays no part in the forums alleged inability to have civil discussions? That seems like an incongruity.

When I point this out to you, you claim that though atheism has nothing to offer, just like theism, theists beliefs are influenced by religion. How is that pertinent to the OP's question or to your initial reply?

If an idea has no evidence for or against, then what motivates that idea is irrelevant. It has NO evidence, for or against. You did move the goalposts. But no worries, this point isn't of great importance to me so I'll let you close out the topic.
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2014 9:07:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
My bare assertion is that because your bare assertion has no support then I can reject it.

I have another bare assertion without support and would like to know if you accept it or reject it.

I assert that hidden in your house are two invisible unicorns. Do you accept my assertion or not?

If you reject my assertion, then is it because I have no support for it, or do you just HATE invisible unicorns?
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 7:11:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/22/2014 9:07:43 AM, bulproof wrote:
My bare assertion is that because your bare assertion has no support then I can reject it.

I have another bare assertion without support and would like to know if you accept it or reject it.

I assert that hidden in your house are two invisible unicorns. Do you accept my assertion or not?

If you reject my assertion, then is it because I have no support for it, or do you just HATE invisible unicorns?

What do you have against using your brain? Does it hurt you when you do?

It isn't MY claim that both theists and atheists make bare assertions. It is his. So your question is best put to him.

As for the larger picture, you are a troll so I take nothing you say seriously. I use you for lulz until you start talking about mommies and nappies and bleating like a goat.

You almost always assist me. Thanks.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 7:51:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/17/2014 7:13:54 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Why is it that here in the religious forum it is impossible to have civil discussion without bare assertions?

Because both parties reach a point at which each can do nothing else but blurt out bare assertions. Reason number two is that both parties reach a point at which the answer to certain questions is, "I don't know."

An atheist cannot explain the origin of matter/energy, so he just claims that it has no origin at all. Next in line, he cannot even venture a reasonable theory - even a workable hypothesis - as to what occurred to effect changes in this matter/energy. It's just "something happened."

Theists, on the other hand, claim that there is another realm in which the basic laws of physics that now govern this universe do not or did not apply. Of course, since we now operate 100% by these laws, such a theory is impossible to prove.

Another reason, reason #3, is that the ability to read poetic, metaphorical literature is apparently an acquired trait.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."