Total Posts:541|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"Could you be wrong?"

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:05:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The following video (70 seconds long) pretty much sums up half the conversations I have with preachers in my town:

http://youtu.be...

If your conversee has a position which they can not/will not change their mind on, then it's a waste of time. Simple as that.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:25:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

True, I mean I don't think any if my conversations are this short, but it is a stopper as soon as you realise their position is dogmatic.

This applies to users on this forum, too, such as BoG, celestialtorah, and a couple others. Just don't waste time with them.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 6:49:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 6:05:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
The following video (70 seconds long) pretty much sums up half the conversations I have with preachers in my town:

http://youtu.be...

If your conversee has a position which they can not/will not change their mind on, then it's a waste of time. Simple as that.

I have debated people who started with the assertion that they hold absolute knowledge that their religion is correct, and by the end of the debate (3-years later), they left their religion and became an atheist.

One simply has to accept that it's a very long-term debate. Even when one presents absolutely irrefutable evidence that there is no God, or that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, no one is going to change their mind over the course of a single conversation. It takes a long series of conversations, in which it is continually demonstrated that the religious finding has no rational support, for even the most intellectually honest theist to begin to change their mind.

It will never happen in a single debate.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:03:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:

I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

These little threads are fascinating. It's like watching people of a different race than you talk when they don't know you're there.

So, if the person does not believe he can be wrong, you walk away. But if the person admits he can be wrong, you then claim he cannot be right. And who's dogmatic again?

Not a single one of you behave as if you can be wrong. Sure you give lip service to the old, "yes, I admit I could be wrong...." but has anyone ever seen say, Beastt admit to being wrong?

The entire convo so far is like a twilight zone skit where militants talk about the intolerance of westerners. I don't know whether to laugh or be sad.

Envisage, why does the convo have to be adversarial from the get go? Why does it begin with you trying to prove them wrong? So you leave if you can't prove them wrong because proving them wrong is the only reason you will talk to them in the first place. And you call them "dogmatic"!!

I bet none of you will see the irony.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:16:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2014 6:05:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
The following video (70 seconds long) pretty much sums up half the conversations I have with preachers in my town:

http://youtu.be...

If your conversee has a position which they can not/will not change their mind on, then it's a waste of time. Simple as that.

This coming from the guy who adheres to the absolute of moral nothingness?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:32:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:16:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 6:05:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
The following video (70 seconds long) pretty much sums up half the conversations I have with preachers in my town:

http://youtu.be...

If your conversee has a position which they can not/will not change their mind on, then it's a waste of time. Simple as that.

This coming from the guy who adheres to the absolute of moral nothingness?

Lol, you seem obsessed with my life philosophy, we should debate it sometime
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:41:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:03:48 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:

I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

These little threads are fascinating. It's like watching people of a different race than you talk when they don't know you're there.

So, if the person does not believe he can be wrong, you walk away. But if the person admits he can be wrong, you then claim he cannot be right. And who's dogmatic again?

Not a single one of you behave as if you can be wrong. Sure you give lip service to the old, "yes, I admit I could be wrong...." but has anyone ever seen say, Beastt admit to being wrong?

The entire convo so far is like a twilight zone skit where militants talk about the intolerance of westerners. I don't know whether to laugh or be sad.

Envisage, why does the convo have to be adversarial from the get go? Why does it begin with you trying to prove them wrong? So you leave if you can't prove them wrong because proving them wrong is the only reason you will talk to them in the first place. And you call them "dogmatic"!!

I bet none of you will see the irony.

No, we don't see the irony because it is something you made up.

I said nothing even remotely resembling what you charged, making me wonder if you have enough intellectual honesty to even warrant a response. Asking if a person is fallible is, from the point of view of anyone with an IQ above room temperature, an attempt to ascertain whether the person is open minded enough to actually listen to what anyone else has to say. A person who is unwilling to listen to what anyone else has to say clearly has no interest in intelligent discussion, therefore any attempt to have intelligent discussion is futile. I find it astonishing that you would attack me for this point since you would treat an atheist who pulls the same crap the same way and you know it.

Second, I in no way, shape, or form, implied that the possibility of being wrong = "cannot be right". That is just plain stupid and is again, something you entirely made up.

Third, confidence in your viewpoint does not equal believing you can't be wrong (I might add that you seem pretty confident in your viewpoint as well). My views on many things have changed dramatically since I joined this site. In other words... I have been wrong. You want me to admit that again? Make a rational argument based on what I actually said.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:46:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:32:22 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:16:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 6:05:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
The following video (70 seconds long) pretty much sums up half the conversations I have with preachers in my town:

http://youtu.be...

If your conversee has a position which they can not/will not change their mind on, then it's a waste of time. Simple as that.

This coming from the guy who adheres to the absolute of moral nothingness?

Lol, you seem obsessed with my life philosophy, we should debate it sometime

I'm fine going at it over the forums. I wouldn't call it an obsession, it's just annoying that not even you can adhere to your own nihilistic philosophy. I'm just trying to point out how your robotic mindset is not really compatible with being human. I mean you can certainly act like a robot, but that simply dehumanizes you. You have values, so what's the point of trying to legitimize those values? Especially when there is good reason to have those values. You're not a cannibal or a baby rapist, and I don't think you indifferent to these actions on a moral level. So why reject the idea of a context based moral philosophy? Instead of just saying there is no 'true or false therefore all is morally permissible' why not understand that context matters? And that what's done in one scenario may be immoral and moral in another scenario.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 10:56:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:46:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:32:22 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:16:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 6:05:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
The following video (70 seconds long) pretty much sums up half the conversations I have with preachers in my town:

http://youtu.be...

If your conversee has a position which they can not/will not change their mind on, then it's a waste of time. Simple as that.

This coming from the guy who adheres to the absolute of moral nothingness?

Lol, you seem obsessed with my life philosophy, we should debate it sometime

I'm fine going at it over the forums. I wouldn't call it an obsession, it's just annoying that not even you can adhere to your own nihilistic philosophy.

I am not a nihilist by "conversion", lol. It just happens that my preconceived notions of existentialism, moral realism, cognitivism, epistemological objectivism, etc. got eroded away over time. I now see a completely ground-up entirely subjective approach to be both the most sound and most pragmatic to life.

I'm just trying to point out how your robotic mindset is not really compatible with being human.

I struggle to see how being Human is any different to "being Ape" or "Being Cat", just because I am capable of complex reasoned thought, and have increased awareness doesn't change a whole lot on a fundemental level.

I mean you can certainly act like a robot, but that simply dehumanizes you.

Join me in the abyss

You have values, so what's the point of trying to legitimize those values?

I never denied I have values. I never claimed I was trying to legitimise them either.

Especially when there is good reason to have those values.

If values = self-interest, then having a "reason to have values" is incoherent to me, since you do not "choose" what you feel, and enjoy. Personally I just think values are self-interests with some thought applied to them so they reflect the less myopic nature of self-interest, towards longer-term, and less superficial self-interests.

You're not a cannibal or a baby rapist, and I don't think you indifferent to these actions on a moral level.

I have no interest in either activity.

So why reject the idea of a context based moral philosophy?

I reject all moral philosophies because they are just like kids in the playground fighting over the same toy. In this case, fighting over the definition of "moral". It's much easier to just throw out moral terminology altogether, and make actions depending on our preferences and values, and to let go of preconceived notions of objective "oughts". I have asked you multiple times why I should accept this preconceived notion and literally the only argument you have provided is an appeal to consequences.

It's not a fault with you, but an inherent fault with such a philosophy, it simply is impossible to justify something that is incoherent out of the gate. I really do see why you *want* such a thing to be the case, but I prefer not to have my philosophy grounded in something that is clearly nonsensical.

Instead of just saying there is no 'true or false therefore all is morally permissible'

I never made this argument.

why not understand that context matters? And that what's done in one scenario may be immoral and moral in another scenario.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,193
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 11:26:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:56:34 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:46:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Lol, you seem obsessed with my life philosophy, we should debate it sometime

I'm fine going at it over the forums. I wouldn't call it an obsession, it's just annoying that not even you can adhere to your own nihilistic philosophy.

I am not a nihilist by "conversion", lol. It just happens that my preconceived notions of existentialism, moral realism, cognitivism, epistemological objectivism, etc. got eroded away over time. I now see a completely ground-up entirely subjective approach to be both the most sound and most pragmatic to life.

This is what I'm getting at. How do you justify your subjective values? What are the grounds on which you build?

I'm just trying to point out how your robotic mindset is not really compatible with being human.

I struggle to see how being Human is any different to "being Ape" or "Being Cat", just because I am capable of complex reasoned thought, and have increased awareness doesn't change a whole lot on a fundemental level.

How so? Can you not appreciate the vast different in context? What is this fundamental level you speak of?

I mean you can certainly act like a robot, but that simply dehumanizes you.

Join me in the abyss

NEVER YOU EVIL ROBOT CAT HITLER!

You have values, so what's the point of trying to legitimize those values?

I never denied I have values. I never claimed I was trying to legitimise them either.

I meant to say delegitimize. Your amoral stand point tries to lessen the validity of the subjective morals that you yourself hold.

Especially when there is good reason to have those values.

If values = self-interest, then having a "reason to have values" is incoherent to me, since you do not "choose" what you feel, and enjoy. Personally I just think values are self-interests with some thought applied to them so they reflect the less myopic nature of self-interest, towards longer-term, and less superficial self-interests.

Is that the basis/ground of morality as you understand it? Self interest? Then is this not a more or less theory on the objective source of morality? And if we don't choose our beliefs or values then what does this say about free will?

You're not a cannibal or a baby rapist, and I don't think you indifferent to these actions on a moral level.

I have no interest in either activity.

But if it was in your power to stop others from doing these activities would you stop them? Why or why not?

So why reject the idea of a context based moral philosophy?

I reject all moral philosophies because they are just like kids in the playground fighting over the same toy. In this case, fighting over the definition of "moral". It's much easier to just throw out moral terminology altogether, and make actions depending on our preferences and values, and to let go of preconceived notions of objective "oughts". I have asked you multiple times why I should accept this preconceived notion and literally the only argument you have provided is an appeal to consequences.

But if we simply allow people to act on their preferences without judgment then we'll end up with baby rapists unhindered.

It's not a fault with you, but an inherent fault with such a philosophy, it simply is impossible to justify something that is incoherent out of the gate. I really do see why you *want* such a thing to be the case, but I prefer not to have my philosophy grounded in something that is clearly nonsensical.

You've said it's non-sensical, but you haven't shown me as to how a context based philosophy is incoherent.

Instead of just saying there is no 'true or false therefore all is morally permissible'

I never made this argument.

So in those other threads where you talked about how you're a cannibal and baby rapist this was an example of?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 11:39:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 11:26:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:56:34 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:46:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Lol, you seem obsessed with my life philosophy, we should debate it sometime

I'm fine going at it over the forums. I wouldn't call it an obsession, it's just annoying that not even you can adhere to your own nihilistic philosophy.

I am not a nihilist by "conversion", lol. It just happens that my preconceived notions of existentialism, moral realism, cognitivism, epistemological objectivism, etc. got eroded away over time. I now see a completely ground-up entirely subjective approach to be both the most sound and most pragmatic to life.

This is what I'm getting at. How do you justify your subjective values? What are the grounds on which you build?

Emotivism - My values are just manifestations of my emotions. I emotionally desire sex, so I value sex. I emotionally dislike rotten foods, so I value against them, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Either that or enlightened self-interest

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I prefer the latter since it takes into account contextualism, and reflects longer term self interests. I intend to do a debate on a collectivist egoism, which is pretty much my philosophy on ethics.

I'm just trying to point out how your robotic mindset is not really compatible with being human.

I struggle to see how being Human is any different to "being Ape" or "Being Cat", just because I am capable of complex reasoned thought, and have increased awareness doesn't change a whole lot on a fundemental level.

How so? Can you not appreciate the vast different in context? What is this fundamental level you speak of?

No.

I mean you can certainly act like a robot, but that simply dehumanizes you.

Join me in the abyss

NEVER YOU EVIL ROBOT CAT HITLER!

=)

You have values, so what's the point of trying to legitimize those values?

I never denied I have values. I never claimed I was trying to legitimise them either.

I meant to say delegitimize. Your amoral stand point tries to lessen the validity of the subjective morals that you yourself hold.

Values are necessarily subjective... I delegitimise people who hold values are objective, and I delegitimise people who hold subjective values but attempt to apply it in some universalist sense. I also delegitimise people who attempt to hold that values have any say in what is "right" or "wrong", as opposed to just preferences.

There is way too much baggage.

Especially when there is good reason to have those values.

If values = self-interest, then having a "reason to have values" is incoherent to me, since you do not "choose" what you feel, and enjoy. Personally I just think values are self-interests with some thought applied to them so they reflect the less myopic nature of self-interest, towards longer-term, and less superficial self-interests.

Is that the basis/ground of morality as you understand it? Self interest? Then is this not a more or less theory on the objective source of morality? And if we don't choose our beliefs or values then what does this say about free will?

No. Self interest is by definition subjective. And I never argued that self-interest has anything to do with "right" or "wrong". How can I do that if I hold right and wrong are non cognitive, lol.

Also I reject free will (hard incompatibilist).

You're not a cannibal or a baby rapist, and I don't think you indifferent to these actions on a moral level.

I have no interest in either activity.

But if it was in your power to stop others from doing these activities would you stop them? Why or why not?

Depends. I am obligated to by living in society and from my peers to. It is also within my self-interest not to watch people die needlessly. So that increases the probability of me doing such.

So why reject the idea of a context based moral philosophy?

I reject all moral philosophies because they are just like kids in the playground fighting over the same toy. In this case, fighting over the definition of "moral". It's much easier to just throw out moral terminology altogether, and make actions depending on our preferences and values, and to let go of preconceived notions of objective "oughts". I have asked you multiple times why I should accept this preconceived notion and literally the only argument you have provided is an appeal to consequences.

But if we simply allow people to act on their preferences without judgment then we'll end up with baby rapists unhindered.

No. Self interest doesn't mean I need to adhere to individualism. You have the state, and collectivism, which indirectly fulfil my greater self-interest (by making shelter, food, security, employment etc easily accessable, etc), also your peers, etc. which lead to different values that arise from enlightened self-interest over unenlightened (myopic) self-interest.

It's not a fault with you, but an inherent fault with such a philosophy, it simply is impossible to justify something that is incoherent out of the gate. I really do see why you *want* such a thing to be the case, but I prefer not to have my philosophy grounded in something that is clearly nonsensical.

You've said it's non-sensical, but you haven't shown me as to how a context based philosophy is incoherent.

Instead of just saying there is no 'true or false therefore all is morally permissible'

I never made this argument.

So in those other threads where you talked about how you're a cannibal and baby rapist this was an example of?

Ever heard of a joke>
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 11:39:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 11:26:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:56:34 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:46:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Lol, you seem obsessed with my life philosophy, we should debate it sometime

I'm fine going at it over the forums. I wouldn't call it an obsession, it's just annoying that not even you can adhere to your own nihilistic philosophy.

I am not a nihilist by "conversion", lol. It just happens that my preconceived notions of existentialism, moral realism, cognitivism, epistemological objectivism, etc. got eroded away over time. I now see a completely ground-up entirely subjective approach to be both the most sound and most pragmatic to life.

This is what I'm getting at. How do you justify your subjective values? What are the grounds on which you build?

Emotivism - My values are just manifestations of my emotions. I emotionally desire sex, so I value sex. I emotionally dislike rotten foods, so I value against them, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Either that or enlightened self-interest

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I prefer the latter since it takes into account contextualism, and reflects longer term self interests. I intend to do a debate on a collectivist egoism, which is pretty much my philosophy on ethics.

I'm just trying to point out how your robotic mindset is not really compatible with being human.

I struggle to see how being Human is any different to "being Ape" or "Being Cat", just because I am capable of complex reasoned thought, and have increased awareness doesn't change a whole lot on a fundemental level.

How so? Can you not appreciate the vast different in context? What is this fundamental level you speak of?

No.

I mean you can certainly act like a robot, but that simply dehumanizes you.

Join me in the abyss

NEVER YOU EVIL ROBOT CAT HITLER!

=)

You have values, so what's the point of trying to legitimize those values?

I never denied I have values. I never claimed I was trying to legitimise them either.

I meant to say delegitimize. Your amoral stand point tries to lessen the validity of the subjective morals that you yourself hold.

Values are necessarily subjective... I delegitimise people who hold values are objective, and I delegitimise people who hold subjective values but attempt to apply it in some universalist sense. I also delegitimise people who attempt to hold that values have any say in what is "right" or "wrong", as opposed to just preferences.

There is way too much baggage.

Especially when there is good reason to have those values.

If values = self-interest, then having a "reason to have values" is incoherent to me, since you do not "choose" what you feel, and enjoy. Personally I just think values are self-interests with some thought applied to them so they reflect the less myopic nature of self-interest, towards longer-term, and less superficial self-interests.

Is that the basis/ground of morality as you understand it? Self interest? Then is this not a more or less theory on the objective source of morality? And if we don't choose our beliefs or values then what does this say about free will?

No. Self interest is by definition subjective. And I never argued that self-interest has anything to do with "right" or "wrong". How can I do that if I hold right and wrong are non cognitive, lol.

Also I reject free will (hard incompatibilist).

You're not a cannibal or a baby rapist, and I don't think you indifferent to these actions on a moral level.

I have no interest in either activity.

But if it was in your power to stop others from doing these activities would you stop them? Why or why not?

Depends. I am obligated to by living in society and from my peers to. It is also within my self-interest not to watch people die needlessly. So that increases the probability of me doing such.

So why reject the idea of a context based moral philosophy?

I reject all moral philosophies because they are just like kids in the playground fighting over the same toy. In this case, fighting over the definition of "moral". It's much easier to just throw out moral terminology altogether, and make actions depending on our preferences and values, and to let go of preconceived notions of objective "oughts". I have asked you multiple times why I should accept this preconceived notion and literally the only argument you have provided is an appeal to consequences.

But if we simply allow people to act on their preferences without judgment then we'll end up with baby rapists unhindered.

No. Self interest doesn't mean I need to adhere to individualism. You have the state, and collectivism, which indirectly fulfil my greater self-interest (by making shelter, food, security, employment etc easily accessable, etc), also your peers, etc. which lead to different values that arise from enlightened self-interest over unenlightened (myopic) self-interest.

It's not a fault with you, but an inherent fault with such a philosophy, it simply is impossible to justify something that is incoherent out of the gate. I really do see why you *want* such a thing to be the case, but I prefer not to have my philosophy grounded in something that is clearly nonsensical.

You've said it's non-sensical, but you haven't shown me as to how a context based philosophy is incoherent.

Instead of just saying there is no 'true or false therefore all is morally permissible'

I never made this argument.

So in those other threads where you talked about how you're a cannibal and baby rapist this was an example of?

Ever heard of a joke>
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 11:58:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

You need to have a discussion with scmike2. It might end quickly, but it would be the best two minutes I could ask for. :)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 12:01:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If your conversee has a position which they can not/will not change their mind on, then it's a waste of time. Simple as that.

Everyone could be wrong ... depending. But they could also be right.

Let's say you have a debilitating pain in your gut, and I, not a doctor, come along. You tell me you're in serious pain, and ask me to get you to a hospital. I see you doubled over and wincing in pain, but I don't see the pain itself, nor do I feel it. So I ask, "Could you be wrong?" You say, "No, I can't be wrong." I reply, "Well then, I can't help you", shake your hand and go on my way.

Could the young men in your video be wrong? Yes. Could they even be delusional? Absolutely. Could they be right, and you be wrong?

Just like the pain in your gut that I couldn't see or feel, religious people have an undeniable feeling in them that you cannot see or feel. Granted, that feeling doesn't necessarily justify their beliefs, but the feeling is there, and just as you would not be able to deny the pain in your gut, they cannot deny the feeling they experience, and just as you could not say that you might be wrong about believing you're in pain, they cannot say they might be wrong about what they believe, when what they feel confirms that belief.

Like science, my own beliefs are self correcting. But until I realize that a particular belief has been corrected, I stick to my convictions. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, but until that becomes apparent, I'll still defend what I believe as though I am right.

Who wouldn't?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 12:32:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 11:58:28 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

You need to have a discussion with scmike2. It might end quickly, but it would be the best two minutes I could ask for. :)

I responded earlier to his thread. Waiting to hear what he has to say...
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:08:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 10:41:12 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/9/2014 10:03:48 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:

I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

These little threads are fascinating. It's like watching people of a different race than you talk when they don't know you're there.

So, if the person does not believe he can be wrong, you walk away. But if the person admits he can be wrong, you then claim he cannot be right. And who's dogmatic again?

Not a single one of you behave as if you can be wrong. Sure you give lip service to the old, "yes, I admit I could be wrong...." but has anyone ever seen say, Beastt admit to being wrong?

The entire convo so far is like a twilight zone skit where militants talk about the intolerance of westerners. I don't know whether to laugh or be sad.

Envisage, why does the convo have to be adversarial from the get go? Why does it begin with you trying to prove them wrong? So you leave if you can't prove them wrong because proving them wrong is the only reason you will talk to them in the first place. And you call them "dogmatic"!!

I bet none of you will see the irony.

No, we don't see the irony because it is something you made up.

That, I disagree with.

I said nothing even remotely resembling what you charged, making me wonder if you have enough intellectual honesty to even warrant a response. Asking if a person is fallible is, from the point of view of anyone with an IQ above room temperature, an attempt to ascertain whether the person is open minded enough to actually listen to what anyone else has to say. A person who is unwilling to listen to what anyone else has to say clearly has no interest in intelligent discussion, therefore any attempt to have intelligent discussion is futile. I find it astonishing that you would attack me for this point since you would treat an atheist who pulls the same crap the same way and you know it.

Second, I in no way, shape, or form, implied that the possibility of being wrong = "cannot be right". That is just plain stupid and is again, something you entirely made up.

Third, confidence in your viewpoint does not equal believing you can't be wrong (I might add that you seem pretty confident in your viewpoint as well). My views on many things have changed dramatically since I joined this site. In other words... I have been wrong. You want me to admit that again? Make a rational argument based on what I actually said.

Simmer down DR, not all of the charges were directed at you. I should have been more clear about that but I was ....too lazy. You are an exception to the atheist rule on this board, so my response applied to the majority. You were collateral damage. Apologies.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:27:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

I don't know a single man who claims to be infallible.

I'd also ask atheists to answer the same question, its not like evidence drives a great many atheists - far from it. (Not all mind you). So if you demand other people be able to change their mind ... you may want to consider your standard of judgement and apply it to your own side.

Or does anyone think the various trolls of atheism will ever be influenced to change their mind? And when some of them are reduced to stalking people rather than change their minds? Its a fair bet intransigent opinions is not something atheism is magically free from ... unlike religion.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:35:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:27:19 AM, neutral wrote:

And when some of them are reduced to stalking people rather than change their minds?

Pot calling the kettle black. I have to give you credit for being creative. Nah... no I don't.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:42:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:35:30 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:27:19 AM, neutral wrote:

And when some of them are reduced to stalking people rather than change their minds?

Pot calling the kettle black. I have to give you credit for being creative. Nah... no I don't.

Says the slavish defender of the trolls of atheism ... tell me Jody, does your hero seem like he's even slightly logical? When your internet BFF can't acknowledge basic historical realities, does this strike you as ... a person about to change his mind? Subjected to evidential reasoning?

In rebuttal? Where exactly are the well reasoned atheist positions that actually address the points of a persons religion enough to actually convince them of anything?

You called me out on a fact and were right, therefore you are a murderer!

And people are not flocking to drop their religion based on THAT? Shocking.

Envy does a good job, but he only really addresses the logical side of the argument in a cogent (supportable) manner, but he has yet to get to 50.1% of the evidence to overcome the rebuttals. He does nothing whatsoever to address spirituality issues, and as we are not vulcans ... at least Envy is honest - honest enough to pause in answering his own question.

The trolls of atheism you blindly defend are not. And how they are any better than the Westboro Baptist Church intellectually is beyond logical comprehension J.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:44:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:27:19 AM, neutral wrote:
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

I don't know a single man who claims to be infallible.

The comment I made was in response to the OP talking about presuppositionalists, most if not all of which claim that they are absolutely certain that God exists. To be absolutely certain is to claim that your determination is infallible. To make that claim while accepting that you are fallible seems like a quite a contradiction to me.

I'd also ask atheists to answer the same question, its not like evidence drives a great many atheists - far from it. (Not all mind you). So if you demand other people be able to change their mind ... you may want to consider your standard of judgement and apply it to your own side.

Or does anyone think the various trolls of atheism will ever be influenced to change their mind? And when some of them are reduced to stalking people rather than change their minds? Its a fair bet intransigent opinions is not something atheism is magically free from ... unlike religion.

You do realize that most atheists were believers at one point (as was I) right? So what happened? They changed their mind.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:51:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:44:38 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:27:19 AM, neutral wrote:
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

I don't know a single man who claims to be infallible.

The comment I made was in response to the OP talking about presuppositionalists, most if not all of which claim that they are absolutely certain that God exists. To be absolutely certain is to claim that your determination is infallible. To make that claim while accepting that you are fallible seems like a quite a contradiction to me.

I'd also ask atheists to answer the same question, its not like evidence drives a great many atheists - far from it. (Not all mind you). So if you demand other people be able to change their mind ... you may want to consider your standard of judgement and apply it to your own side.

Or does anyone think the various trolls of atheism will ever be influenced to change their mind? And when some of them are reduced to stalking people rather than change their minds? Its a fair bet intransigent opinions is not something atheism is magically free from ... unlike religion.

You do realize that most atheists were believers at one point (as was I) right? So what happened? They changed their mind.

I am certain God exists, and I used to be an atheist. (With the caveat that the 'evidence' is inductive and merely preponderant, the Holy Ghost provides the rest when we are ready.)

That has nothing to do with the mindset that is intractable and unchangeable.

Atheists are every bit as guilty of this as any adherent of any other spot on the spectrum. You guys have your zealots too. That does not mean that there are 'good' atheists who have arrived at their conclusions as a result of long study and a genuine desire to seek truth. At the end of a long study, in any field, a person can become intractable about damn near anything ...

That is why the case needed to change someone's mind must be VERY compelling, at least to those with enough honesty to acknowledge that, despite certainty, they could be wrong - they are human. But look around RR, do you think all atheists are even attempting to make that case? All religious people?

Indeed RR, some atheists claim they don't even have a burden of proof, not need to make an argument at all, and yet they expect, indeed demand, that people be open to changing their mind based on solid argumentation ;-)

That is a problem.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:53:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2014 6:05:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
The following video (70 seconds long) pretty much sums up half the conversations I have with preachers in my town:

http://youtu.be...

If your conversee has a position which they can not/will not change their mind on, then it's a waste of time. Simple as that.

Just because someone thinks differently than you, it's not a waste of time to become friends with them. All God's people learn from each other so if we don't listen to each other, you will not learn what God has given them to perceive in this world.

However, God did use us saints and prophets to testify to our true invisible existence in Him and He chose certain people called believers to listen to us during this first age. That doesn't mean we saints reject anyone who comes to listen to His voice ( the gospel ) that we speak to them. We become friends whoever wants to be with us, even if they reject the knowledge of God. We're not here to judge anyone. We're only here to let God's people know that we were created within His invisible thoughts and that life is nothing but a dream.

I love to hear the dream experiences of God's people. It makes life very interesting when you hear them talk about being in alien spaceships and seeing other wild visions that God gave them to observe. But when some of His people come to me to tell me that I'm a liar, false prophet, the Devil or something on those terms. I will confront them and tell them they are not listening and have no authority to judge me and the knowledge I share from our Creator's mind. We all get our information from the mind of God, which is our true created existence. This is why we shouldn't judge each other.

One of God's commandments is this; "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor. " The reason for this is that everything we see, smell, taste, touch, etc. comes from the mind of our Creator who created everything.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 10:54:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:42:22 AM, neutral wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:35:30 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:27:19 AM, neutral wrote:

And when some of them are reduced to stalking people rather than change their minds?

Pot calling the kettle black. I have to give you credit for being creative. Nah... no I don't.

Says the slavish defender of the trolls of atheism ... tell me Jody, does your hero seem like he's even slightly logical? When your internet BFF can't acknowledge basic historical realities, does this strike you as ... a person about to change his mind? Subjected to evidential reasoning?

Who are you referring to? Without knowing I can't answer the question with honesty.

In rebuttal? Where exactly are the well reasoned atheist positions that actually address the points of a persons religion enough to actually convince them of anything?

There are some here, but I think it doesn't really matter.

You called me out on a fact and were right, therefore you are a murderer!

What?

And people are not flocking to drop their religion based on THAT? Shocking.

I don't want anyone to drop their religion. That wouldn't be productive in my opinion.

Envy does a good job, but he only really addresses the logical side of the argument in a cogent (supportable) manner, but he has yet to get to 50.1% of the evidence to overcome the rebuttals. He does nothing whatsoever to address spirituality issues, and as we are not vulcans ... at least Envy is honest - honest enough to pause in answering his own question.

I can't speak for what evidence he has or doesn't have. Even if he had 100% undeniable factual proof, something tells me it would be ignored.

The trolls of atheism you blindly defend are not. And how they are any better than the Westboro Baptist Church intellectually is beyond logical comprehension J.

People tend to be rude in this place of anonymous faces. It's heartbreaking.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:08:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:51:42 AM, neutral wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:44:38 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:27:19 AM, neutral wrote:
At 11/30/2014 6:16:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
I think I would actually prefer to engage with them a little bit. My first question to them would be "Are you fallible?". If they say no, then I'd walk away. If they say yes then I'd like to hear them explain how a fallible being can make an infallible determination.

I don't know a single man who claims to be infallible.

The comment I made was in response to the OP talking about presuppositionalists, most if not all of which claim that they are absolutely certain that God exists. To be absolutely certain is to claim that your determination is infallible. To make that claim while accepting that you are fallible seems like a quite a contradiction to me.

I'd also ask atheists to answer the same question, its not like evidence drives a great many atheists - far from it. (Not all mind you). So if you demand other people be able to change their mind ... you may want to consider your standard of judgement and apply it to your own side.

Or does anyone think the various trolls of atheism will ever be influenced to change their mind? And when some of them are reduced to stalking people rather than change their minds? Its a fair bet intransigent opinions is not something atheism is magically free from ... unlike religion.

You do realize that most atheists were believers at one point (as was I) right? So what happened? They changed their mind.

I am certain God exists, and I used to be an atheist. (With the caveat that the 'evidence' is inductive and merely preponderant, the Holy Ghost provides the rest when we are ready.)

That has nothing to do with the mindset that is intractable and unchangeable.

Atheists are every bit as guilty of this as any adherent of any other spot on the spectrum. You guys have your zealots too. That does not mean that there are 'good' atheists who have arrived at their conclusions as a result of long study and a genuine desire to seek truth. At the end of a long study, in any field, a person can become intractable about damn near anything ...

That is why the case needed to change someone's mind must be VERY compelling, at least to those with enough honesty to acknowledge that, despite certainty, they could be wrong - they are human. But look around RR, do you think all atheists are even attempting to make that case? All religious people?

Indeed RR, some atheists claim they don't even have a burden of proof, not need to make an argument at all, and yet they expect, indeed demand, that people be open to changing their mind based on solid argumentation ;-)

That is a problem.

If your claim to certainty has nothing to do with the mindset that is intractable and unchangeable, then you are not talking about the same thing that they are. They are literally saying that they cannot possibly be wrong. In fact their entire apologetic is built on the idea that the atheist worldview is absurd because the atheist could possibly be wrong, which of course doesn't apply to them and thus is the very basis of why one is supposed to accept their worldview over the atheists.

And you are still misunderstanding the burden of proof. Whether someone has a BoP is entirely dependent on the proposition being discussed. "God exists" is the proposition that addresses theism/atheism, and clearly the BoP falls unto the side making that claim. "God does not exist" is a separate claim, with a BoP on the person making that claim. Most atheists are not making that claim. (I don't want to derail this thread, so if you want to respond to this point then start a new one or let me know to and I gladly will).
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 11:24:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If there weren't large numbers of militant and influential theists, there would hardly be any atheists at all-- considering they already comprise a minority of the world population.

Atheists do not go around declaring that there isn't a god EXCEPT in response to the large number of the theists who do indeed go around insisting that there is a god-- with no evidence other than their insistence, both historical and current.

In other words, atheism is the response, the reaction, not the original proposition.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 12:04:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2014 6:05:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
The following video (70 seconds long) pretty much sums up half the conversations I have with preachers in my town:

http://youtu.be...

If your conversee has a position which they can not/will not change their mind on, then it's a waste of time. Simple as that.

True, but sometimes the most determined opposer has something happen which changes their viewpoint. I have lost count of teh number of JWs who used to be very determiondly on the "Do Not Call" list, but ended up asking them to call.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:34:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 11:08:00 AM, Double_R wrote:

If your claim to certainty has nothing to do with the mindset that is intractable and unchangeable, then you are not talking about the same thing that they are. They are literally saying that they cannot possibly be wrong. In fact their entire apologetic is built on the idea that the atheist worldview is absurd because the atheist could possibly be wrong, which of course doesn't apply to them and thus is the very basis of why one is supposed to accept their worldview over the atheists.

Aside from that being a giant straw man, I get the distinct feeling you haven't read a lot of apologetics. Just ask Beast about Lee Stroebel, who details his intellectual examination of the evidence for God and Christ as an atheist and how it drove his conversion to Christianity. Take a look at the only one that most atheists are familiar with, Mere Christianity, which is an argument from morality.

All you've done is basically said that Christians make strong cases, and that their intent in making the case is somehow ... bad? Based on your assumption of their mindset, even as you atheists demand exactly what they do. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.


And you are still misunderstanding the burden of proof. Whether someone has a BoP is entirely dependent on the proposition being discussed. "God exists" is the proposition that addresses theism/atheism, and clearly the BoP falls unto the side making that claim. "God does not exist" is a separate claim, with a BoP on the person making that claim. Most atheists are not making that claim. (I don't want to derail this thread, so if you want to respond to this point then start a new one or let me know to and I gladly will).

And yet here you are demanding that Christians have an open mind and be willing to change their minds based on an argument that is not being made. If you think Christians are wrong RR, guess what you are claiming? If you demand they be willing to change their mind because they are wrong, guess what that requires? A rock solid argument.

Fallaciously shifting the requirement for that argument back on the Christian, whose mind you are demanding to be open to the argument you are unwilling to make ... perfectly demonstrates the intransigence Envy brings up.

You cannot both demand people be willing to change their minds and refuse to do anything that might actually change their minds because you don't have to. It simply begs the question from a Christian who says, "OK, I might be wrong, tell me why?"

"You have the burden of proof dimwit!"

And any logical Christian will immediately realize that not only do you have no argument, but that you are using a logical fallacy. The failure is not the Christian's intransigence, its the utter logical failure of the atheist in that case. It appears the claim of 'Christian intransigence' in this case is nothing more than a post hoc rationalization for the atheist to avoid having to examine his own intransigence.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:47:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 10:54:48 AM, jodybirdy wrote:


Who are you referring to? Without knowing I can't answer the question with honesty.

You know exactly who I am referring to Jody.


There are some here, but I think it doesn't really matter.

Then why are you on a debate forum?


What?

Your internet BF's tirade? A claim he attempted to reinstate yesterday as well?


I don't want anyone to drop their religion. That wouldn't be productive in my opinion.

Then why are you blindly siding with the trolls of atheism?


I can't speak for what evidence he has or doesn't have. Even if he had 100% undeniable factual proof, something tells me it would be ignored.

By some, but not all. How do you think previous religions have been falsified? The same goes for atheists, and there are many good and rock solid cases that have been presented. At least Envy, usually, tries to counter them with logic - actually demonstrating the atheist position - a very rare one on this forum and a welcome change from the constant cries of murder, rape, genocide, and other emotional barbs.

I still shake my head at atheists who launch into a 'genocidal' tirade about the 'obviously true' 'genocide' and then call the same Bible 'obviously false'.

Once again, something logically cannot be both true and false. So when atheists say all the bad things are true and all the good things are false? It is not logic those atheists are using.

Envy does not do that. Which is why I do not count him among the trolls of atheism. There are other atheists who make it, examine it, and when they realize it, stop saying it. They are not the trolls of atheism. Then there are your heroes, who chase people around the forum launching the same ridiculous claims over and over and over, and are immune to the same logical rebuttals. Those are the trolls of atheism - the very embodiment of the intransigence Envy brings up - its simply not just a religious problem, where fundamentalism is every bit as bad, thought usually not anywhere near as nasty, as the trolls of atheism.

Most Creationists, for example, will not use someone's service in a war to tar them as 'murderers' and worse, the trolls of atheism? You tell me what resorting to that tactic means about their open mindedness?

And remember Jody, you cheered it on.


The trolls of atheism you blindly defend are not. And how they are any better than the Westboro Baptist Church intellectually is beyond logical comprehension J.

People tend to be rude in this place of anonymous faces. It's heartbreaking.

Not all. Not by a long shot. Why do you think your personal hero is dismissed a troll and Envy is not? Burzmali is not? PJ43176? True or false, when confronted - rather than resorting to calling me a murderer, has backed up - even if its just to re-examine his case.

That is how debate works Jody. And the idea that people can't see the difference between how logical atheists and religious people behave verses the trolls is lunacy. Its obvious. Blindingly so.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 1:21:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 12:47:22 AM, neutral wrote:
At 12/10/2014 10:54:48 AM, jodybirdy wrote:


Who are you referring to? Without knowing I can't answer the question with honesty.

You know exactly who I am referring to Jody.

I have several friends here.


There are some here, but I think it doesn't really matter.

Then why are you on a debate forum?

I'm here to understand and to possibly gain knowledge that will help me find the best way of life for me. I'm here to discuss religion and to learn.

What?

Your internet BF's tirade? A claim he attempted to reinstate yesterday as well?

Tell me the claim and the friend who made it. I honestly don't know which person you are referring to.


I don't want anyone to drop their religion. That wouldn't be productive in my opinion.

Then why are you blindly siding with the trolls of atheism?

Because, being agnostic, I can relate with them and because they are kind to me.

I can't speak for what evidence he has or doesn't have. Even if he had 100% undeniable factual proof, something tells me it would be ignored.

By some, but not all. How do you think previous religions have been falsified? The same goes for atheists, and there are many good and rock solid cases that have been presented. At least Envy, usually, tries to counter them with logic - actually demonstrating the atheist position - a very rare one on this forum and a welcome change from the constant cries of murder, rape, genocide, and other emotional barbs.

Atheism isn't a religion. Hopefully it'll never become one.

I still shake my head at atheists who launch into a 'genocidal' tirade about the 'obviously true' 'genocide' and then call the same Bible 'obviously false'.

I'm not into the genocide argument. I don't make those claims.

Once again, something logically cannot be both true and false. So when atheists say all the bad things are true and all the good things are false? It is not logic those atheists are using.

If you're referring to the Bible then I think that you have a valid argument. It's either true or false and you can't pick it apart and choose what to believe or not to believe.

Envy does not do that. Which is why I do not count him among the trolls of atheism. There are other atheists who make it, examine it, and when they realize it, stop saying it. They are not the trolls of atheism. Then there are your heroes, who chase people around the forum launching the same ridiculous claims over and over and over, and are immune to the same logical rebuttals. Those are the trolls of atheism - the very embodiment of the intransigence Envy brings up - its simply not just a religious problem, where fundamentalism is every bit as bad, thought usually not anywhere near as nasty, as the trolls of atheism.

Most Creationists, for example, will not use someone's service in a war to tar them as 'murderers' and worse, the trolls of atheism? You tell me what resorting to that tactic means about their open mindedness?

It's as wrong as someone calling me a whore, a tool, or a stripper. And I'm sorry you have to endure that. I know it is your career.

And remember Jody, you cheered it on.

I came into this forum with an open mind towards Christians. Some Christians here have been terrible to me. Perhaps I became angry. Similar to your anger towards atheists. I see that it wrong of me and I want to be more like I was. Less jaded. I'm trying. Give me a chance.

The trolls of atheism you blindly defend are not. And how they are any better than the Westboro Baptist Church intellectually is beyond logical comprehension J.

People tend to be rude in this place of anonymous faces. It's heartbreaking.

Not all. Not by a long shot. Why do you think your personal hero is dismissed a troll and Envy is not? Burzmali is not? PJ43176? True or false, when confronted - rather than resorting to calling me a murderer, has backed up - even if its just to re-examine his case.

I think you are referring to Beastt. I can't speak for why he says that to you. Maybe it's a mutual dislike. You both seem to say horrible things to each other.

That is how debate works Jody. And the idea that people can't see the difference between how logical atheists and religious people behave verses the trolls is lunacy. Its obvious. Blindingly so.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."