Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

idea for fixing this forum

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:15:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are different types of threads that should be made.
1) presenting (a small amount) of theological arguments to be discussed.
2) development of theological arguments.
3) current events tied to religion.
4) discussion of theological issues (whether it is an issue of interpretation of a holy book, a dilemma between religions, or a dilemma between belief and non-belief).

There should be about an equal amount of 1, 3, and 4 on the first page of the forum (with the occasional 2).

I have noticed that other threads either end up being threads that involve preaching, threads that end up off topic fast, or threads that belong in a different forum.

Now, when someone gets really off topic one should ignore the post (and possibly report it if it violates ddo policies).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 10:47:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:19:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
This post should be moved to another forum.

Based off the ideas it proposes, yes, but I am sure people understand that there are certain rare exceptions (especially a thread dealind directly with the forum in a constructive manner).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 11:55:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 10:15:27 PM, SNP1 wrote:
There are different types of threads that should be made.
1) presenting (a small amount) of theological arguments to be discussed.
2) development of theological arguments.
3) current events tied to religion.
4) discussion of theological issues (whether it is an issue of interpretation of a holy book, a dilemma between religions, or a dilemma between belief and non-belief).

There should be about an equal amount of 1, 3, and 4 on the first page of the forum (with the occasional 2).

I have noticed that other threads either end up being threads that involve preaching, threads that end up off topic fast, or threads that belong in a different forum.

Now, when someone gets really off topic one should ignore the post (and possibly report it if it violates ddo policies).

This is a difficult issue. On the one hand we (the non-religious) want to engage the religious so that a constructive conversation may develop with the hopes of having deeper levels of understanding on both sides. Unfortunately, we often run into such thick dogma and indoctrination that a chasm of between the two becomes too wide for constructive discussion to take place.

I do not think placing limits on what one wants to express regarding their view is prudent but when a position turns into blatant proselytizing without regard for any back and forth then the discussion is over and no longer beneficial.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 2:31:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
No poster should make threats of hell and damnation to those that don't believe, which of course they can't substantiate. There are probably vulnerable people who might be upset by this form of harassment. Apart from that I think anything should go on a religious forum, one should be able to say what they like about any religion and deity, however impolite!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 2:52:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It seems to me that most religious issues are ethical, moral, cultural, historical, epistemological or cosmological questions posed in theological frames almost guaranteed to make the question unresolvable.

Within a faith, theological discussion might make some sense (not to an atheist like me, but to a theist perhaps.) Yet between faiths... I'll be guided by theistic colleagues, but have you ever seen competing theologies produce anything useful?

It seems to me that the most profitable questions are posed secularly (by which I mean 'of the world'), and are values-based, rather than doctrinally-quibbled.

This is the space in which monotheists of different stripes most often agree -- as may polytheists, Deists, secular humanists and syncretists.

I have yet to see one of those conversations take place here. I think it would make a great change from the usual doctrinal trebucheting.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 3:43:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Agreed. But then, people try to show that it is irrational through irrational means.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 4:52:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/20/2015 11:55:20 PM, MEK wrote:
At 5/20/2015 10:15:27 PM, SNP1 wrote:
There are different types of threads that should be made.
1) presenting (a small amount) of theological arguments to be discussed.
2) development of theological arguments.
3) current events tied to religion.
4) discussion of theological issues (whether it is an issue of interpretation of a holy book, a dilemma between religions, or a dilemma between belief and non-belief).

There should be about an equal amount of 1, 3, and 4 on the first page of the forum (with the occasional 2).

I have noticed that other threads either end up being threads that involve preaching, threads that end up off topic fast, or threads that belong in a different forum.

Now, when someone gets really off topic one should ignore the post (and possibly report it if it violates ddo policies).

This is a difficult issue. On the one hand we (the non-religious) want to engage the religious so that a constructive conversation may develop with the hopes of having deeper levels of understanding on both sides. Unfortunately, we often run into such thick dogma and indoctrination that a chasm of between the two becomes too wide for constructive discussion to take place.

I have yet to see much of this at all and I've been around for awhile MEK. I don't think the continual harassment of demanding physical evidence at every turn with regards to spiritual existence is wanting more insight, that's not having hopes of deeper understanding (I'm not pointing at you, this is just a general observation).
What usually ends up being the case is that the opposing side wants nothing to do with understanding especially not deeper lol, rather the game is to dispose of anything religious as quick as possible by shoving arguments from ignorance such as demanding we hand over physical evidence for a God who is Spirit.

Hopes of having deeper understanding would be to first understand when you enter a religion forum, that you have entered a topic where "material evidence" is no longer viable. I'm not saying it's unimportant but this is not the science forum, it's a spiritual one and that HAS to be understood right from the start or else this whole set up is a waste of time and nothing constructive is gained.
The opposing side needs to build there arguments and concerns accordingly, knowing that science and the study of our natural world is not compatible with the spiritual. There is no need to reject one for the other they simply are two different natures, I have no need or desire to reject science or the study of our world to retain spiritual beliefs.
So the contention becomes circular when it could be much more simplistic, simplistic for both parties and simplistic for deeper understanding. By constructing the arguments and questions based off this truth alone there would be much more constructive debate and clarity.
This is not dogma but the plain truth.

I do not think placing limits on what one wants to express regarding their view is prudent but when a position turns into blatant proselytizing without regard for any back and forth then the discussion is over and no longer beneficial.

Yes, there are definitely cases of proselytizing and everyone knows who they are few they be. Some have already been removed but this comes with the territory because most theists desire Atheists to see and understand spirituality and gain that connection, so there can be some emotion involved and the line becomes blurry here and there but IMO this should be expected, though handled when it becomes excessive.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 5:42:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!

Anything else rational you got?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 5:49:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Come on old gal you're taking too long, lets put together two sentences this time, I know you can do it.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 6:40:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!

You make crazy statements which have no meaning, what does 'god is spirit' actually mean?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 6:43:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 6:40:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!

You make crazy statements which have no meaning, what does 'god is spirit' actually mean?

It simply means God is not a material/physical Being. Not to be rude but this should be basic understanding, actually should be effortless.
Thanks for asking.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 6:52:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 6:43:26 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 6:40:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!

You make crazy statements which have no meaning, what does 'god is spirit' actually mean?

It simply means God is not a material/physical Being. Not to be rude but this should be basic understanding, actually should be effortless.
Thanks for asking.

And because God is not a material Being JJ, God is outside the restriction of material evidence where science no longer is viable. It's just not a compatible system, two different natures.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 7:28:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 6:43:26 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 6:40:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!

You make crazy statements which have no meaning, what does 'god is spirit' actually mean?

It simply means God is not a material/physical Being. Not to be rude but this should be basic understanding, actually should be effortless.
Thanks for asking.

The deity is definitely NOT a material being but a figment of the human imagination, imo!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 8:29:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 6:52:03 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 6:43:26 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 6:40:59 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!

You make crazy statements which have no meaning, what does 'god is spirit' actually mean?

It simply means God is not a material/physical Being. Not to be rude but this should be basic understanding, actually should be effortless.
Thanks for asking.

And because God is not a material Being JJ, God is outside the restriction of material evidence where science no longer is viable. It's just not a compatible system, two different natures.

Material = existent
Immaterial = non-existent
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 8:43:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 5:42:21 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!

Anything else rational you got?

Let's assume your god is indeed extant but immaterial and that he (it?) still somehow interacts with the material world. In that case there should be clear evidence of the recorded occurrences of those interactions. We have yet to see evidence of (a) the Exodus, (b) the Flood, (c) The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, (d) the Tower of Babel, or (e) the Resurrection of Jesus. This kind of evidence, or the lack thereof, is one primary reason that disbelievers are disbelievers.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 8:58:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 8:43:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:42:21 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!

Anything else rational you got?

Let's assume your god is indeed extant but immaterial and that he (it?) still somehow interacts with the material world.

How would god do that? Our science suggests a fundamental force carrier is required to interact with the physical world, and fundamental force carriers ARE physical.

In that case there should be clear evidence of the recorded occurrences of those interactions. We have yet to see evidence of (a) the Exodus, (b) the Flood, (c) The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, (d) the Tower of Babel, or (e) the Resurrection of Jesus. This kind of evidence, or the lack thereof, is one primary reason that disbelievers are disbelievers.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 9:00:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 8:58:16 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 8:43:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:42:21 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:41:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 5:32:53 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 4:54:48 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:32:26 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 5/21/2015 3:00:43 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Ah... So optimistic...
We can always wish and hope for rational discussion (google search doesn't count), right?

The problem being most of what is claimed by people where religion is concerned is irrational!

Oh is that right??
All you do is throw out one-liners with the same !!!!!! in every post. Is that what you call rational?
Give me some examples of your claim if you don't mind, I'd like to see what claim is rational.

You have NO evidence that a deity exists, when you do I might take some notice!

If I didn't have any evidence I wouldn't believe what I believe lol, however it's not the kind of evidence you would find examining a rock, that is because God is Spirit.

And thanks for supporting my case in post #10

And once again a one-liner!

Anything else rational you got?

Let's assume your god is indeed extant but immaterial and that he (it?) still somehow interacts with the material world.

How would god do that? Our science suggests a fundamental force carrier is required to interact with the physical world, and fundamental force carriers ARE physical.

I agree. I was simply pointing out that there is a place for physical evidence in the effort to demonstrate the existence of a god or gods. Please note the hypothetical nature of the statement.

In that case there should be clear evidence of the recorded occurrences of those interactions. We have yet to see evidence of (a) the Exodus, (b) the Flood, (c) The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, (d) the Tower of Babel, or (e) the Resurrection of Jesus. This kind of evidence, or the lack thereof, is one primary reason that disbelievers are disbelievers.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 9:15:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yay, we got the irrationality we were talking about!

At 5/21/2015 7:28:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity is definitely NOT a material being but a figment of the human imagination, imo!
The deity we are talking about is not a figment of imagination. I recommend learning about what you are arguing against first.

At 5/21/2015 8:29:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Material = existent
Immaterial = non-existent
In other words, logic, math, reasoning, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, truth, laws of nature, morality, concepts, beauty, love, free will, etc. don't exist.
Bravo, we are arguing against an anti-rational.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 9:22:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:15:30 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Yay, we got the irrationality we were talking about!

At 5/21/2015 7:28:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity is definitely NOT a material being but a figment of the human imagination, imo!
The deity we are talking about is not a figment of imagination. I recommend learning about what you are arguing against first.

At 5/21/2015 8:29:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Material = existent
Immaterial = non-existent
In other words, logic, math, reasoning, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, truth, laws of nature, morality, concepts, beauty, love, free will, etc. don't exist.
Bravo, we are arguing against an anti-rational.

All of those are creations of the human mind which is extant only in a living brain. Concepts of a deity are exactly the same, products of the human mind. Nothing more.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 9:31:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:22:13 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:15:30 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Yay, we got the irrationality we were talking about!

At 5/21/2015 7:28:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity is definitely NOT a material being but a figment of the human imagination, imo!
The deity we are talking about is not a figment of imagination. I recommend learning about what you are arguing against first.

At 5/21/2015 8:29:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Material = existent
Immaterial = non-existent
In other words, logic, math, reasoning, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, truth, laws of nature, morality, concepts, beauty, love, free will, etc. don't exist.
Bravo, we are arguing against an anti-rational.

All of those are creations of the human mind which is extant only in a living brain. Concepts of a deity are exactly the same, products of the human mind. Nothing more.

Are you implying that math, logic, etc. are not material? What then are concepts they composed of?

Whats up with the oxymorons? You keep calling God a concept and something that didn't exist before humans. I am curious, can you define 'God'?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 10:05:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 9:31:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:22:13 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:15:30 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Yay, we got the irrationality we were talking about!

At 5/21/2015 7:28:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity is definitely NOT a material being but a figment of the human imagination, imo!
The deity we are talking about is not a figment of imagination. I recommend learning about what you are arguing against first.

At 5/21/2015 8:29:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Material = existent
Immaterial = non-existent
In other words, logic, math, reasoning, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, truth, laws of nature, morality, concepts, beauty, love, free will, etc. don't exist.
Bravo, we are arguing against an anti-rational.

All of those are creations of the human mind which is extant only in a living brain. Concepts of a deity are exactly the same, products of the human mind. Nothing more.

Are you implying that math, logic, etc. are not material? What then are concepts they composed of?

A concept is, of course, not material in the fact it cannot be touched or felt. It's an abstract construct that is used in the material world to accomplish given tasks. Math is used, for example, to determine the weight bearing capacity of a bridge. The bridge is material but the concept behind its construction is not.

Whats up with the oxymorons? You keep calling God a concept and something that didn't exist before humans. I am curious, can you define 'God'?

I can give you a general definition of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that is immaterial yet hear prayers, takes righteous souls to a place of eternal peace and condemns others to eternal torment. That's a general description of the Abrahamic deity as described in both the Christian and Islamic holy books. I use it as a general reference. More primitive cultures worshipped and revered more natural and observable things such as the sun, moon, stars, mountains, even animals and believed they were imbued with spirits. In any case, any so-called god is nothing more than the a concept of one or more human minds trying to explain or control something they do not understand and/or are afraid of.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 11:27:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 10:05:54 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:31:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:22:13 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:15:30 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Yay, we got the irrationality we were talking about!

At 5/21/2015 7:28:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity is definitely NOT a material being but a figment of the human imagination, imo!
The deity we are talking about is not a figment of imagination. I recommend learning about what you are arguing against first.

At 5/21/2015 8:29:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Material = existent
Immaterial = non-existent
In other words, logic, math, reasoning, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, truth, laws of nature, morality, concepts, beauty, love, free will, etc. don't exist.
Bravo, we are arguing against an anti-rational.

All of those are creations of the human mind which is extant only in a living brain. Concepts of a deity are exactly the same, products of the human mind. Nothing more.

Are you implying that math, logic, etc. are not material? What then are concepts they composed of?

A concept is, of course, not material in the fact it cannot be touched or felt. It's an abstract construct that is used in the material world to accomplish given tasks. Math is used, for example, to determine the weight bearing capacity of a bridge. The bridge is material but the concept behind its construction is not.

We rediscovered that non-material things exists, I see.

Whats up with the oxymorons? You keep calling God a concept and something that didn't exist before humans. I am curious, can you define 'God'?

I can give you a general definition of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that is immaterial yet hear prayers, takes righteous souls to a place of eternal peace and condemns others to eternal torment. That's a general description of the Abrahamic deity as described in both the Christian and Islamic holy books. I use it as a general reference. More primitive cultures worshipped and revered more natural and observable things such as the sun, moon, stars, mountains, even animals and believed they were imbued with spirits. In any case, any so-called god is nothing more than the a concept of one or more human minds trying to explain or control something they do not understand and/or are afraid of.

The logic using the first definition seems to be following these conversations:

Person A: "The highest mountain is Mount Rushmore. "

Person B: "But there is a higher mountain: Mount Everest."

Person A: "True, but there is no mountain higher mountain than Mount Rushmore."

Person B: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a higher mountain than Mount Rushmore, then Mount Rushmore is not the highest mountain. Mount Rushmore can't be the highest and yet not the highest mountain at the same time. Since your statement that Mount Rushmore is the highest mountain is incoherent, then it is false.

-

Atheist: "The greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

Theist: "Actually, there is a conceivably greater being: A being that exists both as a concept and in reality."

Atheist: "True, but the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

Theist: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a conceivable being greater than the one that exists only as a concept, then the being that exists only as a concept is not the greatest conceivable being. The greatest conceivable being cannot be the greatest and yet not the greatest at the same time. Since your statement that the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept is incoherent, then it is false.


How can something defined as non-contingent first exist after the contingent human mind?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:14:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 11:27:34 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 5/21/2015 10:05:54 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:31:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:22:13 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:15:30 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Yay, we got the irrationality we were talking about!

At 5/21/2015 7:28:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity is definitely NOT a material being but a figment of the human imagination, imo!
The deity we are talking about is not a figment of imagination. I recommend learning about what you are arguing against first.

At 5/21/2015 8:29:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Material = existent
Immaterial = non-existent
In other words, logic, math, reasoning, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, truth, laws of nature, morality, concepts, beauty, love, free will, etc. don't exist.
Bravo, we are arguing against an anti-rational.

All of those are creations of the human mind which is extant only in a living brain. Concepts of a deity are exactly the same, products of the human mind. Nothing more.

Are you implying that math, logic, etc. are not material? What then are concepts they composed of?

A concept is, of course, not material in the fact it cannot be touched or felt. It's an abstract construct that is used in the material world to accomplish given tasks. Math is used, for example, to determine the weight bearing capacity of a bridge. The bridge is material but the concept behind its construction is not.

We rediscovered that non-material things exists, I see.

Whats up with the oxymorons? You keep calling God a concept and something that didn't exist before humans. I am curious, can you define 'God'?

I can give you a general definition of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that is immaterial yet hear prayers, takes righteous souls to a place of eternal peace and condemns others to eternal torment. That's a general description of the Abrahamic deity as described in both the Christian and Islamic holy books. I use it as a general reference. More primitive cultures worshipped and revered more natural and observable things such as the sun, moon, stars, mountains, even animals and believed they were imbued with spirits. In any case, any so-called god is nothing more than the a concept of one or more human minds trying to explain or control something they do not understand and/or are afraid of.

The logic using the first definition seems to be following these conversations:

Person A: "The highest mountain is Mount Rushmore. "

Person B: "But there is a higher mountain: Mount Everest."

Person A: "True, but there is no mountain higher mountain than Mount Rushmore."

Person B: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a higher mountain than Mount Rushmore, then Mount Rushmore is not the highest mountain. Mount Rushmore can't be the highest and yet not the highest mountain at the same time. Since your statement that Mount Rushmore is the highest mountain is incoherent, then it is false.

-

Atheist: "The greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

Theist: "Actually, there is a conceivably greater being: A being that exists both as a concept and in reality."

Atheist: "True, but the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

Theist: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a conceivable being greater than the one that exists only as a concept, then the being that exists only as a concept is not the greatest conceivable being. The greatest conceivable being cannot be the greatest and yet not the greatest at the same time. Since your statement that the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept is incoherent, then it is false.


How can something defined as non-contingent first exist after the contingent human mind?

Are you seriously pushing for the ontological argument even though philosophers accept that it is flawed and are still trying to find a way to get it to work?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 12:54:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/21/2015 11:27:34 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 5/21/2015 10:05:54 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:31:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:22:13 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/21/2015 9:15:30 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Yay, we got the irrationality we were talking about!

At 5/21/2015 7:28:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity is definitely NOT a material being but a figment of the human imagination, imo!
The deity we are talking about is not a figment of imagination. I recommend learning about what you are arguing against first.

At 5/21/2015 8:29:56 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Material = existent
Immaterial = non-existent
In other words, logic, math, reasoning, thoughts, consciousness, ideas, truth, laws of nature, morality, concepts, beauty, love, free will, etc. don't exist.
Bravo, we are arguing against an anti-rational.

All of those are creations of the human mind which is extant only in a living brain. Concepts of a deity are exactly the same, products of the human mind. Nothing more.

Are you implying that math, logic, etc. are not material? What then are concepts they composed of?

A concept is, of course, not material in the fact it cannot be touched or felt. It's an abstract construct that is used in the material world to accomplish given tasks. Math is used, for example, to determine the weight bearing capacity of a bridge. The bridge is material but the concept behind its construction is not.

We rediscovered that non-material things exists, I see.

Whats up with the oxymorons? You keep calling God a concept and something that didn't exist before humans. I am curious, can you define 'God'?

I can give you a general definition of a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being that is immaterial yet hear prayers, takes righteous souls to a place of eternal peace and condemns others to eternal torment. That's a general description of the Abrahamic deity as described in both the Christian and Islamic holy books. I use it as a general reference. More primitive cultures worshipped and revered more natural and observable things such as the sun, moon, stars, mountains, even animals and believed they were imbued with spirits. In any case, any so-called god is nothing more than the a concept of one or more human minds trying to explain or control something they do not understand and/or are afraid of.

The logic using the first definition seems to be following these conversations:

Person A: "The highest mountain is Mount Rushmore. "

Person B: "But there is a higher mountain: Mount Everest."

Person A: "True, but there is no mountain higher mountain than Mount Rushmore."

Person B: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a higher mountain than Mount Rushmore, then Mount Rushmore is not the highest mountain. Mount Rushmore can't be the highest and yet not the highest mountain at the same time. Since your statement that Mount Rushmore is the highest mountain is incoherent, then it is false.

That analogy is totally irrelevant to my statement. Elucidate, please?

-

Atheist: "The greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

Theist: "Actually, there is a conceivably greater being: A being that exists both as a concept and in reality."

Atheist: "True, but the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept."

The Atheist would not agree that your statement is true since he has already expressed a diametrically opposed view. Second, you have made an assertion of actual existence without evidence to support it in any material way and it can thus be dismissed.

Theist: "That is an illogical statement. If there is a conceivable being greater than the one that exists only as a concept, then the being that exists only as a concept is not the greatest conceivable being. The greatest conceivable being cannot be the greatest and yet not the greatest at the same time. Since your statement that the greatest conceivable being only exists as a concept is incoherent, then it is false.


How can something defined as non-contingent first exist after the contingent human mind?

That's your definition, not mine.

I think we have strayed far enough from the subject of this thread. May I suggest we either move it to a more appropriate one or create another.