Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby General Discussion topic #13300371

Subject: "Does God Exist? Debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens" Previous topic | Next topic
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 08:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Does God Exist? Debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens"
Wed Dec-05-18 08:42 AM by Case_One

  

          

If you have the time to invest, I think you'd do well to watch this debate that will provide education about both positions.

This is a really great debate between a Turek (a Christian) and Hitchens (an Atheist). Both men make powerful openings statements and the follow-up rebuttals are very keen. The question and answer debate portion is very good too, but you'll notice the difference between the person who answers the questions and the person who sidesteps the question via disrespect, introducing jokes, or trying to change the question so that they can escape the response that would cause them to arrive at a conclusion that is contrary to their initial response. Let the debate show who has the capacity to respond honestly and who chooses to play to the crowd because they cannot betray their alliance. Notice that both men have a chance to ask each other questions but only one ask questions and the other disbands their opportunity because they have nothing. Next, there is an opportunity for the audience to ask a question and response, and even then, there is only one person that honestly answers the questions without trying to play to the crowd via jokes, dismissive responses or out of context answers to direct questions.

I leave this debate for you to arrive at a conclusion of who is prepared and who is honestly ready to have a conversion.

Does God Exist? (Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens)
https://youtu.be/S7WBEJJlYWU



.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
Way to not influence people with preconceptions going in.
Dec 05th 2018
1
Oh, give it a rest. People are intelligent. They can make conclusion.
Dec 05th 2018
2
your observations made me not watch it.
Dec 05th 2018
3
How?
Dec 05th 2018
5
      the spin that you put on that
Dec 05th 2018
7
           OK. It's your choice.
Dec 05th 2018
8
Show me a "complaint". I pointed out the insidious, biased tact
Dec 05th 2018
4
      What biased tact? See my responses
Dec 05th 2018
6
           ^^---- I'm Not going beyond this point ----^^
Dec 05th 2018
9
           You predisposed the audience to your observations
Dec 05th 2018
11
all of the this
Dec 07th 2018
35
Answer the 4 questions or stay out of my post.
Dec 11th 2018
70
      You need to correct question 3, for starters.
Dec 11th 2018
72
You're in some sort of loop
Dec 05th 2018
10
Nah, there's no loop. But I will check out a few of the books you ref'd
Dec 05th 2018
13
      I'll jsut shit in a hat
Dec 05th 2018
15
           That's might progressive of you.
Dec 05th 2018
16
           Posting about taking a shit in a hat is more productive
Dec 06th 2018
28
a transcript would help speed thru the schlock
Dec 05th 2018
12
I find Turek to be more consistent and honest about his position.
Dec 05th 2018
14
      Hm interesting
Dec 05th 2018
17
           Cool
Dec 06th 2018
26
Hitch was my hero when i used to consider myself atheist
Dec 05th 2018
18
You're a glutten for punishment lol
Dec 05th 2018
19
What punishment?
Dec 05th 2018
20
imagine listening to Christopher Hitchens
Dec 06th 2018
21
even if I weren't already a Christian, I'd become one....
Dec 06th 2018
22
like 100 times out of a hundred
Dec 06th 2018
30
i would give you 24 dollars
Dec 06th 2018
23
      what
Dec 06th 2018
29
Why are people still having this debate?
Dec 06th 2018
24
Why shouldn't people still have this debate?
Dec 06th 2018
25
      Because he thinks god exists and is a settled subject
Dec 06th 2018
27
      So where is your 20 pg commentary about the debate?
Dec 06th 2018
33
           I wrote it on your heart.
Dec 06th 2018
34
                lmfao
Dec 07th 2018
36
                Classic Hitchens technique
Dec 07th 2018
37
                     Apple didn't fall far if we're both made in the image of your god
Dec 07th 2018
38
                     Also, this is a great example of your snake tendencies
Dec 07th 2018
39
                          Can you know evil without knowing good?
Dec 10th 2018
48
                               Can you stop being snake and engage honestly for once?
Dec 10th 2018
53
                                    Save the ad hominem and answer the question
Dec 10th 2018
55
                                         No ad hominem. I'm accurately describing your approach.
Dec 10th 2018
57
                                              Where did Space, Matter, and Time come from?
Dec 10th 2018
58
                                                   Where does your complete lack of honesty and integrity come from?
Dec 10th 2018
59
                                                        You're Done.
Dec 10th 2018
60
                                                             You'd rather bow out than engage honestly and sincerely
Dec 10th 2018
61
                                                                  You're and Atheist and I'm a Christian
Dec 10th 2018
63
                                                                       You sarcastically asked where my 20 page commentary is.
Dec 10th 2018
66
                                                                            Man, you’re the master of saying a whole lot of nothing -
Dec 10th 2018
67
                                                                                 Stop with the generalizations. Be specific for once.
Dec 10th 2018
68
                                                                                      Since you like directness, answer these 4 Questions
Dec 11th 2018
69
                                                                                      Substantiate the the bullshit you said in the previous post.
Dec 11th 2018
71
                                                                                      Facts, you can't answer the 4 question
Dec 11th 2018
73
                                                                                      No, I just refuse to enable your dishonest tactics.
Dec 11th 2018
74
                                                                                      ^ Again, saying a lot to not say anything.
Dec 11th 2018
75
                                                                                      Don't just make assertions. Show your work, liar.
Dec 11th 2018
76
                                                                                      Ok, Since you're my accuser. Tell the truth and answer this question.
Dec 11th 2018
77
                                                                                      I said show your work, not shift the burden of proof yet again.
Dec 11th 2018
78
                                                                                      Show me where I lied.. And answer the 4 questions.
Dec 11th 2018
79
                                                                                      Wow, you really are a Trumpian-American. Entirely divorced from reality.
Dec 11th 2018
80
                                                                                      I see right through you now and it's sad.
Dec 12th 2018
84
      Becuase you don’t have to prove that God exists...
Dec 08th 2018
44
The concept of a creator from a Christian concept
Dec 06th 2018
31
What do you mean by that?
Dec 06th 2018
32
      Its diluted, stepped on a rehash of a rehash of a rehash
Dec 08th 2018
40
Why come there's no dinosaurs in the bible?
Dec 08th 2018
41
If God is all powerful...
Dec 08th 2018
42
They resolve this through the ontological argument
Dec 08th 2018
45
Thanks for that answer, really.
Dec 08th 2018
46
Ok, He's the answer to your question
Dec 10th 2018
47
      I already answered his question, but thanks
Dec 10th 2018
49
           You answer was misleading and pedestrian.
Dec 10th 2018
50
                False, on every possible point.
Dec 10th 2018
52
                     Gist
Dec 10th 2018
54
                          Your problem is that I understand perfectly well
Dec 10th 2018
62
                          Nope. You're STUCK and can't admit it. So just answer #63
Dec 10th 2018
64
                               Riiight so stuck that I consistently point out specific problems
Dec 10th 2018
65
                          God lied when he said he would destroy the gods of Egypt
Dec 11th 2018
81
                               Answers
Dec 12th 2018
88
If Adam and Eve were the first people...
Dec 08th 2018
43
the alternate interpretation of Adam & Eve & the serpent...
Dec 12th 2018
82
has this ever been a poll in GD ???
Dec 10th 2018
51
IDK know, but if you make one I'm sure the response would be good
Dec 10th 2018
56
Faith vs Logic = Everybody loses
Dec 12th 2018
83
I respect your response and truly appreciate you commentary.
Dec 12th 2018
85
The problem is that faith does not exist in a vacuum.
Dec 12th 2018
86
      Damn it CT...this is long lol
Dec 12th 2018
87

Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 09:02 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "Way to not influence people with preconceptions going in."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

If you simply wanted people to simply form their own conclusions, you'd have allowed the debate, and it's participants, to speak for themselves.

Instead of actually presenting the debate without bias, you went full Fox News, poisoning the well with a passive-aggressive description that, given your position, makes it clear who you think did what.

Further, this was a debate. Not a conversation. So if one perso. Wasn't ready for a conversation, that's because they understood what they were there to do.

But the best part though? You're clearly describing your own tactics, which I've demonstrated and pointed to with specificity, time and again.

Bottom line: if wanted people to watch with an open mind, you wouldn't have presented it the way you did.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 09:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "Oh, give it a rest. People are intelligent. They can make conclusion."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

Stop complaining. All I did was point out my observations.


.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
tariqhu
Charter member
13839 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 09:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
3. "your observations made me not watch it. "
In response to Reply # 2


          

nah, you trippin

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:13 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "How?"
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

I'll just ask that simple question first.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
tariqhu
Charter member
13839 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
7. "the spin that you put on that"
In response to Reply # 5


          

immediately put a bias on it. given, I'm completely assuming based on your normal stance.

the way you presented this makes me think you viewed the atheist as the one dodging the questions.

nah, you trippin

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "OK. It's your choice. "
In response to Reply # 7


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 10:01 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "Show me a "complaint". I pointed out the insidious, biased tact"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

And then cited a very apt comparison between you and Fox News.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "What biased tact? See my responses "
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

Your complaint is all of what you said in quotes below.

"If you simply wanted people to simply form their own conclusions, you'd have allowed the debate, and it's participants, to speak for themselves."

^^ An observation of my observation in the form of a passive complaint.


"Instead of actually presenting the debate without bias, you went full Fox News, poisoning the well with a passive-aggressive description that, given your position, makes it clear who you think did what."

^^ Deming my observation as a passive-aggressive description, which is your way of offering a passive-aggressive complaint


"Further, this was a debate. Not a conversation. So if one perso. Wasn't ready for a conversation, that's because they understood what they were there to do."

^^ The dang subject said DEBATE!



"But the best part though? You're clearly describing your own tactics, which I've demonstrated and pointed to with specificity, time and again.

Bottom line: if wanted people to watch with an open mind, you wouldn't have presented it the way you did."


^^ Claiming via passive complaining about how I should have done something in a manner that suits you.





.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "^^---- I'm Not going beyond this point ----^^"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

Watch the video or not. Save the arguments.

.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 12:08 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "You predisposed the audience to your observations "
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

>Your complaint is all of what you said in quotes below

False.

>"If you simply wanted people to simply form their own
>conclusions, you'd have allowed the debate, and it's
>participants, to speak for themselves."
>
>^^ An observation of my observation in the form of a passive
>complaint.

No, merely a statement of fact. You chose to present the debate through the lense of your person opinion on the way the debate went ahead of time.

>"Instead of actually presenting the debate without bias, you
>went full Fox News, poisoning the well with a
>passive-aggressive description that, given your position,
>makes it clear who you think did what."
>
>^^ Deming my observation as a passive-aggressive description,
>which is your way of offering a passive-aggressive complaint

Not a complaint. An observation. Further, it was very direct, stated plainly. Nothing passive or aggressive about it.

>"Further, this was a debate. Not a conversation. So if one
>perso. Wasn't ready for a conversation, that's because they
>understood what they were there to do."
>
>^^ The dang subject said DEBATE!

Yes, and in the closing remark of your well-poisoning, you said the following"

"leave this debate for you to arrive at a conclusion of who is prepared and who is honestly ready to have a conversion"

I gave you the benefit of the doubt here, since "conversion" makes absolutely no sense within the context of the discussion.

So I naturally assumed that this was a simple typo and you meant "conversation".

>"But the best part though? You're clearly describing your own
>tactics, which I've demonstrated and pointed to with
>specificity, time and again.
>
>Bottom line: if wanted people to watch with an open mind, you
>wouldn't have presented it the way you did."

>^^ Claiming via passive complaining about how I should have
>done something in a manner that suits you.

Nothing passive. It's very direct, actually.

And certainly not a complaint. This a very clear, concise statement about the obvious attempt to predispose potential viewers to your perspective. Nothing more or less.

It has nothing to do what what "suits" me.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
MiracleRic
Member since Oct 21st 2002
44997 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 03:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
35. "all of the this"
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

Let me sport my Air Hyperbole 2010s in peace. (c) ansomble

Building repetoires (c) spm since 1983

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 07:42 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
70. "Answer the 4 questions or stay out of my post."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

Man the heck up. Do your research and get back to me. In the meantime save all of the dribble-drab commentary and crying.



.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 09:18 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "You need to correct question 3, for starters. "
In response to Reply # 70
Tue Dec-11-18 09:30 AM by Cold Truth

  

          

Save us both the trouble of pointing out the obvious error there.

And way to ruin your own post out the gate lmao. You couldn't even be honest and sincere in the OP.

It's clear you wanted chaos, not conversation. You don't create conversation by presenting a subject with a clear agenda.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

handle
Charter member
15350 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 12:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "You're in some sort of loop"
In response to Reply # 0


          

I suggest reading Oolon Colluphid's four book trilogy on the subject:

Where God Went Wrong
Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes
Who is this God Person Anyway?
and Well That About Wraps It Up For God

Note: Christopher Hitchen KNOWS if there is a god or not - your boy's a coward who chose to continue living instead finding out the answer for himself.

------------
My prayers have been answered!

Gone
My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 04:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "Nah, there's no loop. But I will check out a few of the books you ref'd"
In response to Reply # 10
Wed Dec-05-18 04:35 PM by Case_One

  

          

I would like to suggest reading on or two of the following if you have time.


Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World
by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell

Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message
by Ravi Zacharias

The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus
by Lee Strobel


Jesus Among Secular Gods: The Countercultural Claims of Christ
by Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale

.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
handle
Charter member
15350 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 04:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "I'll jsut shit in a hat"
In response to Reply # 13


          

It'll be more productive.

And god bless.

------------
My prayers have been answered!

Gone
My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 04:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "That's might progressive of you."
In response to Reply # 15


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 06:40 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "Posting about taking a shit in a hat is more productive "
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

Setting one of those books on fire in a trash can would at leats make them useful.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

fif
Member since Feb 23rd 2004
1394 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 01:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "a transcript would help speed thru the schlock"
In response to Reply # 0


          

There are a lot of unknowns at play but in the main Turek is of course wrong, but it's interesting how people respond to this sort of debate/combat. To be honest, I know I'm not going to watch a 2 hour video and change my mind about intelligent design and so my interest becomes wanting to see Hitchens slide in and slice the dude with his dry razor wit. Which leaves me maybe worse off than before because rather than updating my beliefs by trying to learn something of worth from Turek, I'm thirsting for confirmation of my priors. But yea, it's 2018, I don't have time for this. I've been glancing into Spinoza some lately. His God is physics in some sense but he's got some things to say about how we can best adapt our selves to the natural world within and all around us. Seems like he may survive neuroscience cracking open the mind.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 04:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "I find Turek to be more consistent and honest about his position. "
In response to Reply # 12
Wed Dec-05-18 04:30 PM by Case_One

  

          

Hitchens makes very compelling arguments and I can agree with him on a few points, but he's not consistent or responsible with his comments. To me, he likes to divert the topic like a magician when he's in a corner. That kind so nuance plays well and sounds good but falls flat when the questions demand a direct and honest response.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
fif
Member since Feb 23rd 2004
1394 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 05:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "Hm interesting"
In response to Reply # 14


          

If I've got some free time the next couple days, I'll try to watch the whole thing and let you know what I think

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 06:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "Cool"
In response to Reply # 17


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

araQual
Charter member
42079 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 07:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "Hitch was my hero when i used to consider myself atheist"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

nowadays i find both positions to be untenable.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

IsaIsaIsa
Member since May 01st 2008
5631 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 08:09 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
19. "You're a glutten for punishment lol"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


www.Tupreme.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-05-18 11:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "What punishment?"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

Punishment is the consequence of penalty as retribution for an offense.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Rjcc
Charter member
89033 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 02:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
21. "imagine listening to Christopher Hitchens"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

for any reason other than someone putting a gun to your head and demanding you do it.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
rorschach
Member since Nov 10th 2004
7635 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 03:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "even if I weren't already a Christian, I'd become one...."
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

just to spite a guy like Hitchens. He was a dick.

---------------------------------------


---------------------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Rjcc
Charter member
89033 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 07:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
30. "like 100 times out of a hundred"
In response to Reply # 22


  

          

he is the best advertisement for religion going.

his only issue with religion is that he didn't invent it himself.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
fif
Member since Feb 23rd 2004
1394 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 04:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "i would give you 24 dollars"
In response to Reply # 21


          

for 24 hours of footage showing a day in your life. what are you looking at on screens and in real life that makes you type this way? you clearly have access to a higher order of being. can you share any secrets? i find the world complex and often confusing. you seem to have transcended uncertainty. how? maybe i don't have the hardware to get to where you are, but if i can inch closer, i'd like to try.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Rjcc
Charter member
89033 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 07:01 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
29. "what"
In response to Reply # 23


  

          


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

hip bopper
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
6672 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 04:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "Why are people still having this debate?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 06:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "Why shouldn't people still have this debate?"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 06:13 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "Because he thinks god exists and is a settled subject"
In response to Reply # 25


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 08:01 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "So where is your 20 pg commentary about the debate?"
In response to Reply # 27


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 09:56 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "I wrote it on your heart. "
In response to Reply # 33
Thu Dec-06-18 10:02 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

Trust me, it's there.

I mean, can't actually show you, plainly, because that's too easy.

I wrote it on your heart, and you know that it's there, but you suppress that truth in your unrighteousness.

But know that there are very serious, eternal consequences if you don't believe in my 20 pg commentary.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
MiracleRic
Member since Oct 21st 2002
44997 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 03:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
36. "lmfao"
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

Let me sport my Air Hyperbole 2010s in peace. (c) ansomble

Building repetoires (c) spm since 1983

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 04:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "Classic Hitchens technique "
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

Nothing.
.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 04:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "Apple didn't fall far if we're both made in the image of your god"
In response to Reply # 37
Fri Dec-07-18 04:56 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

>Nothing

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Fri Dec-07-18 05:29 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "Also, this is a great example of your snake tendencies "
In response to Reply # 37
Fri Dec-07-18 05:38 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

You asked a nothing question, brimming with sarcasm.

I provided an answer that was perfectly in line with the tone of that question.

Then you respond with ima jab at Hitchens, as though I had responded to a question asked honestly and with sincerity.

Yes, you got a non-answer to a sarcastic non-question. Go figure.

Also, as I've pointed out countless times already, you engage with complete dishonesty. You dip, dodge, duck,dive, deflect and divert from the subject at all times. You've proven too many times to count that you are not at all interested in honest discussion when the merits of your beliefs are challenged.

You'll answer questions directly if you think you have a chance to proselytize, but you become quite evasive when pressed on the innumerable holes in your beliefs.

So no, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 03:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "Can you know evil without knowing good?"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:24 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "Can you stop being snake and engage honestly for once? "
In response to Reply # 48
Mon Dec-10-18 04:29 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

Can you stop being a wolf in a lamb costume long enough to do that?

Because I'd be more than happy to have that discussion when you're able to suppress your natural tendencies long enough to engage honestly, without simply dodging or deflecting things that don't appeal to your worldview.

Because here's the thing: Time and again, I've replied to you in detail. As you've demonstrated here, your usual tactic is to ignore everything said and move on to another question.

So no, you don't get to completely no-sell criticism, refuse to answer direct challenges to you, your beliefs, or your tactics, and then present a question after you've ignored everything I've said.

If you want to actually discuss this shit, you'll fucking discuss it without your bullshit deflections and sidestepping.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "Save the ad hominem and answer the question"
In response to Reply # 53


  

          

It's a simple question. You should be able to respond as ever so brash and eloquent as you normally do.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:58 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
57. "No ad hominem. I'm accurately describing your approach."
In response to Reply # 55


  

          

A description, in fact, you perfectly illustrated in that response.

You do not get to sidestep 90% of everything that comes your way while demanding answers.

You want me to stop referring to you as a snake who deflects and dodges at a times, stop being a snake who deflects and dodges at all times.

Start engaging honestly and sincerely and you'll get honest and sincere answers.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 05:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "Where did Space, Matter, and Time come from?"
In response to Reply # 57


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 05:53 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
59. "Where does your complete lack of honesty and integrity come from? "
In response to Reply # 58


  

          

Are you going to engage honestly, or continue to ignore every response you get by posing another question that's entirely irrelevant to what I said to you?

We both know I'm absolutely game to answer these questions.

But it's a two way street and you need to have some integrity here.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 06:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "You're Done. "
In response to Reply # 59


  

          


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 06:20 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "You'd rather bow out than engage honestly and sincerely"
In response to Reply # 60


  

          

Not a surprise, but wow.

You not only have no integrity when it comes to this subject, but when pressed to the point that your diversions will not be accepted, you would rather simply take your ball and go home.

When it's clear that you cannot simply change the subject at will, you'd rather fold than actually play the hand and address the subject honestly.

Thanks for showing yourself for the dishonest wolf you truly are though, I couldn't have done it better myself.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 08:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
63. "You're and Atheist and I'm a Christian"
In response to Reply # 61


  

          

I've answered your questions with clarity, honesty, and transparency. You don't have to like my answers. That's your bag, not mine. I have provided you with plenty of chances to dialog and to have a real conversation, not just debate. You chose to be disrespectful like ya homie Hitchens.

Since then, I've asked you to answer a few simple questions and you've avoided all of them. So, if you're able, answer them now.

1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 09:40 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "You sarcastically asked where my 20 page commentary is."
In response to Reply # 63


  

          

I met a sarcastic question with a sarcastic answer.

You said I had "nothing".

You asked a nothing question, brimming with sarcasm.

I point out the problematic nature of the question, and explained how it is in line with your usual responses. Rather than say that your question was sincere, you ignored my response with a question immaterial to the things i addressed,

"can you know evil without knowing good"

^^^that's a complete non sequitur as a response. Completely.

When I point out this habit you have, and explain that i'd sincerely answer these questions if you were to engage honestly and without all this sidestepping that you do, what do you do?

You tell me to just answer the question, telling me to "skip the ad hominem" of explaining the dishonest tactics you use.

I tell you to engage honestly, and I would provide sincere answers. Instead of addressing the issue that I've addressed, you again ran with another non sequitur about the origin of space and time.

I, again, point out the dishonesty of this tact. You then quit the discussion.

Below, I point out that theists get around the issue of omnipotence by defining god as a maximally great being. You incorrectly asserted that nobody has done this, and I explained that a maximally great being is central to the ontological argument.

You tried to skip the specific issues that I cited by summing things up in a very dishonest way, asserting that I don't understand omnipotence, but not explaining how that is.

I explained that you cannot do away with the omnipotence paradox by creating the omnipotence tautology, which is exactly what you did with your bit about the lie.

Your response what that I was "stuck", because I wasn't answering the questions you posed, that were asked in a complete sidestep of issues I addressed regarding your tact.

Now, you're trying to take me to task for choosing not to answer questions that were asked as a means of avoiding answering for very specific issues regarding your tact, while avoiding specific issues I cited with your omnipotence replies.

No, you don't get to ignore the issues I've presented regarding your tact, and you don't get to paint a broad brush response to the specific issues I cited regarding the concept of omnipotence, and you don't get to then hold me to questions you asked dishonestly, as a means to avoid the issues I addressed.

No. You don't get to do that shit. Engage honestly, without all this other bullshit, again, which I've addressed specifically and directly, and I'll give you a sincere answer.

And yes, you're fucking delusional if you think I'm somehow stumped by your questions. You deal in such kindergarten level theological arguments that you should be fucking embarrassed.

I did this in your bullshit "science and faith" post where I dug into both you and the nonsensical article you posted, again with specificity, and you did the same shit there.

You even tried to pull the Kirk Cameron tactic. I've called out your horseshit arguments time and again, by name, several times skipping to the conclusion with ease because you used such obvious canned openers to well known arguments.

I also provided several answers to the morality question in the morality thread, at times in direct response to things that you quoted. As usual, you ignored those response in their entirety...... but then opted to ask that question as a direct response to avoid giving an actual answer to things I actually fucking said.

So no, not only do you NOT get to do this bullshit , you don't get to do it without being called out for it.

You're dishonest. Disingenuous. You're completely lacking in integrity, and if/when you're ready to cutout the fucking circus of dodging and deflecting that I've pointed out in real time, too many times to count, you'll get some genuine answers to these questions.

But you're smoking crack if you think your elementary school apologetic dogshit stumps anyone.



  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 11:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
67. "Man, you’re the master of saying a whole lot of nothing - "
In response to Reply # 66


  

          

as a way of avoiding the direction question that put you in a corner and force you to respond. Yet, in this case you spent all that time literally saying nothing as a way to NOT respond to the 4 direct question that I have asked you - some repeatedly. But you continue to evade. And you still don’t understand what Omnipotence means. It’s like you want to pretend that you don’t have a clue, but you’re ego is choking you because you really know the deal, but you don’t want to put your foot in your mouth. It’s like your fighting yourself with your own words. It’s wild to see.

Now stop being a coward and answer these 4 simple questions. If not, then kick rocks.


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?



.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 11:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "Stop with the generalizations. Be specific for once. "
In response to Reply # 67
Mon Dec-10-18 11:26 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

I listed your bullshit by chapter and verse. You don't get to deflect your way i'l nto a false narrative.

Be specific. Have some fucking integrity for once. A spine. A backbone.

You don't get to make unfounded assertions. Back up your statements by pointing out the specifics.

No twisting the truth.
No lies.
No distortions.
No dishonesty.

Show your work.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 07:39 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "Since you like directness, answer these 4 Questions "
In response to Reply # 68


  

          

Lets go. Answer these 4 simple questions concisely and we can get busy with the dialogue.


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?




.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 09:17 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
71. "Substantiate the the bullshit you said in the previous post. "
In response to Reply # 69


  

          

Show your work. Chapter and verse.

You don't get to further deflect by creatingthis false dichotomy. You don'tget to do that.

These questions were asked as a means of deflecting direct challenges to your tact, here and in other posts.

You do not get to completely avoid accountability for the bullshit lies you tell. Justify your claims. Stop being general.

Have some integrity. Be that person worthy of the calling you have recieved. Because you do not approach this subject with any integrity or uprightness.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 12:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "Facts, you can't answer the 4 question"
In response to Reply # 71


  

          

My integrity nor my character or faith is in question. Say what you want I'm intellectually honest about my faith, beliefs, and responses.

Your ability to answer the 4 questions below is in question. And your ability to understand what the meanings of the following two words Atheist and Omnipotence is also in question.

I've answered you and have given you straight answers many times. You don't like my responses because I wont dance to your beat.

Also, you can't handle being on the Hot Seat or being put in a corner to justify your views when it comes to my questions.

Still, I could care less about your views in general because they don't bother me. But you hate God. That's why you constantly run up into my post trying to debate, bash, disrespect and challenge my beliefs.

You never ask questions without issues a passive aggressive or an aggressively disrespectful comment. You never ask for the sake of getting to know why I believe anything. So, save the crying and have seven seats or answer the questions.


Answer these 4 simple questions concisely and stop crying.


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:07 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
74. "No, I just refuse to enable your dishonest tactics."
In response to Reply # 73


  

          

My integrity nor my character or faith is in question.

Your integrity and character are absolutely questionable, and I explained why. I've pointed to specific examples of your dishonesty.

I'm not questioning your faith.

>what you want I'm intellectually honest about my faith,
>beliefs, and responses.

No, you're intellectually dishonest in the way that you engage. You seem to confuse the fact that you believe the things you say with whether or not your responding honestly to the question or statement being posed.

The bulk of your responses have been non sequiturs that dodge, deflect or divert from the points that were raised, and fun fact: your four questions have been, in great part, what you've used to dodge, divert, and deflect.

These have been pointed out in real time, time and again.

>Your ability to answer the 4 questions below is in question.

And here you are, grandstanding.

You've created a situation where I either enable your dishonest tact by giving your dishonest diversions an honest response, or I hold your feet to the fire you created with your dishonesty.

>And your ability to understand what the meanings of the
>following two words Atheist and Omnipotence is also in
>question.

lol. seriously. lol. atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Simple.

Which means that if there is a god that you do not believe in, you are an atheist in regard to the notion of that particular god. Your belief in a different god does not change this.

Omnipotence is to have unlimited power or authority.

If there is a logical limit, then that is a limit, which is not unlimited. Creating an internally consistent tautology to define your god doesn't make that god omnipotent.

I clearly have a firm grasp on both terms.

>I've answered you and have given you straight answers many
>times.

No, I'm specifically referring to the non-sequitur answers you've given countless times, and specifically in the use of these four questions as a response. You don't get to pretend that providing such responses are intellectually honest.

>You don't like my responses because I wont dance to
>your beat.

First, it has nothing to do with whether or not I “like” your responses. It’s about whether your responses make sense as response to what I’ve actually said, and ignoring my statements in entirety and replying with a question irrelevant to my responses is an intellectually dishonest response. Period.

But here you are, actively changing the terms to fit a fictional narrative you’re creating in real time.

And here I am, pointing out exactly what you’re doing with specificity.

>Also, youcan't handle being on the Hot Seat or being put in a
>corner to justify your views when it comes to my questions.

LMAO is the random, unnecessary capitalization a byproduct of a condition you have, or just plain trolling?

>But you hate God.

No, I don't believe in a god. Any god. I think you may be genuinely incapable of grasping that difference though.

That's why you
>constantly run up into my post trying to debate, bash,
>disrespect and challenge my beliefs.

Way to blame your god for your actions. That’s a fantastic bonus.

Debate? Challenge? Sure. But then, you posted things about reconciling faith with science and another making the grandiose statement that there must be a moral lawgiver. Both were question begging train wrecks, and I pointed out those problems, directly.

My issue was with the premises presented in the articles, not with a deity for which no good supporting evidence exists.

Bash? Disrespect? I call out your dishonesty where and when it happens, directly and specifically. If you don’t like being called out for things like, oh, I don’t know….. posting a debate, asking people to watch, and poisoning the well by setting up a very biased perception of what will take place before they hit change your approach.

Because me calling that out has zero to do with a fictional deity created by bronze age sheep herders, and everything to do with the tactics you employed in the process.

And that’s the best part of all this:

You watched your Charlemagne post fall like a delusional person at Benny Hinn show, and decided to get your numbers by going pop with a post deliberately designed to garner the response it got.

>You never ask questions without issues a passive aggressive or
>an aggressively disrespectful comment.

No, I’m usually pretty direct. My disrespect is… where, exactly? If you’re referring to the times where I call a snake tactic for what it is, I’ll Bee Dat © Redman

Gladly.

And it’s not passive aggressive to point out the obvious issues in a post based around a question-begging article that did nothing but present logical fallacies and false dichotomies left and right.

>You never ask for the
>sake of getting to know why I believe anything.

I ask for the sake of getting down to the rationale behind it. That you can’t provide anything more substantial than an argument from ignorance is your problem. If you don’t like those beliefs to be challenged, keep them to yourself or save it for the usual safe spaces.

Your beliefs are all good. But when you present an article about faith reconciling with science, it’s going to get challenged. When you post about a moral “law” that requires a “law giver”, that’s going to get challenged.

You don’t get to deflect direct, detailed responses to your kindergarten apologetics by asking a question of your own, and then grandstand when I don't further enable your dishonest tact.

Sorry.

As I said in my initial reply to your farce of a post:

If you wanted genuine discussion, you would have presented this without prejudice. But you showed your hand from jump and got what you were fishing for.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:14 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
75. "^ Again, saying a lot to not say anything."
In response to Reply # 74


  

          

Man do yourself a favor and get some friends that are willing to actually spend the time you need to talk in circles.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:33 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
76. "Don't just make assertions. Show your work, liar. "
In response to Reply # 75


  

          

Look, it's easy to stunt in the header. It's easy to make a statement without supporting that assertion.

Show your work. Explain. In detail.

You know, actually provide supporting evidence, reason and context.

For once.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
77. "Ok, Since you're my accuser. Tell the truth and answer this question."
In response to Reply # 76


  

          

What have I lied about or have been untruthful about? Provide the evidence and make it plain. All of my responses to you are here for all of OKP to see. Go on and post your evidence.



Oh, Why are you unable to snswer these 4 simple questions?


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused it?


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 04:54 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
78. "I said show your work, not shift the burden of proof yet again."
In response to Reply # 77
Tue Dec-11-18 04:58 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

Your very response here is a stinging examole.

You said I wrote a lot and said nothing.

That's a fun little missive, but not at all accurate. It's a cute lil message board tact that allows you to avoid the work of actually addressing the points that were made.

I told you to show your work on that statement.

Trying to shift that burden of proof back onto me- AGAIN- is not an example of you showing your work.

In fact, it's the exact sort of deflection I've called you on over and over again.

I am calling you on that dishonest tact, here and now, in real time, as I've done up and down this post.

I've also done that earlier in this very string of posts.

So, again: you say I wrote alot and said nothing. Show your work on that.

And please, stop with the subtle appeal to the crowd bullshit

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 08:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
79. "Show me where I lied.. And answer the 4 questions."
In response to Reply # 78


  

          

It’s my opinion that you write a lot and you DON’T say anything. Live with that understanding.

Now point to a a Lie that I have told. And stop running from my 4 simple question.









.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 08:23 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
80. "Wow, you really are a Trumpian-American. Entirely divorced from reality."
In response to Reply # 79


  

          

Opinions can be and, as with most of yours, are often wrong

An opinion that is directly contradicted by observerable and demonstrable facts is wrong.

And your opinion on this matter is factually incorrect. You're just plain wrong.

The only reconciliation that needs to be made here is your seeming inability to reconcile your opinions with reality.

You dont get to be behind a wall of opinion when reality directly contradicts said opinion.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 03:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
84. "I see right through you now and it's sad. "
In response to Reply # 80


  

          

Man. What happened to you dude. You went on a tangent about the word Opinion and talked yourself into a circle. How does that even happen? It's my Opening that your long-windedness results in noting actually being said that has any real substance - saying a lot only to say nothing.


Now if you really want to say something meaningful answer these 4 simple questions concisely and stop crying.


1. Where do you get your morals from?

2. Can you know evil without knowing good?

3. Who created, Time, Matter, and Space?

4. What existed before the Big Bang and what caused




>Opinions can be and, as with most of yours, are often wrong

^^ Your Opinion.

>
>An opinion that is directly contradicted by observerable and
>demonstrable facts is wrong.
>

Still is not a refute of the word Opinion. And YES you can have an opinion and that opinion be found to be based on an error.



>And your opinion on this matter is factually incorrect. You're
>just plain wrong.
>

I'm not wrong about you. You just can't handle the truth that breaks your little wet bubble.



>The only reconciliation that needs to be made here is your
>seeming inability to reconcile your opinions with reality.
>

The reality is that you're scared to answer the 4 questions because you know that these questions lead down a path that you can't control.

>You dont get to be behind a wall of opinion when reality
>directly contradicts said opinion.


No one is hiding. You're just scared.




.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
hip bopper
Member since Jun 22nd 2003
6672 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 05:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "Becuase you don’t have to prove that God exists..."
In response to Reply # 25


          

to an unbeliever.

The only that way that a unbeliever will know that there is a God is in death.

The debate between God and science is old. God is the Master Scientist. He put everything into existence by just speaking it. Man has been left to figure things out that are beyond our comprehension. So such debates are pointless.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Musa
Member since Mar 08th 2006
15068 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 07:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "The concept of a creator from a Christian concept"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

is limited.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Thu Dec-06-18 07:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "What do you mean by that?"
In response to Reply # 31


  

          


You Said, "The concept of a creator from a Christian concept is limited."

What do you mean by that?



.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Musa
Member since Mar 08th 2006
15068 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 12:56 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "Its diluted, stepped on a rehash of a rehash of a rehash"
In response to Reply # 32


  

          

A 3rd remix.

A terrible country song cover of a Motown classic.

<----

Soundcloud.com/aquil84

(HIP HOP)
http://aquil.bandcamp.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

murderbear
Member since Feb 26th 2012
1922 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 04:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "Why come there's no dinosaurs in the bible?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Or is there?

It's been so long since I've read it.

But simple questions like that always cast doubt for me and I have yet to have anyone answer them seriously.

With no disrespect intended whatsoever, I'd like to post some questions, maybe that can get answered here.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

murderbear
Member since Feb 26th 2012
1922 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 04:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "If God is all powerful..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

Could he/she create a rock so large that he/she could not move it?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 05:55 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "They resolve this through the ontological argument"
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

Basically they realized obvious flaws in the idea of omnipotence, so they re-defined their god as a "maximally great" being, able to do all things that are logically possible.

It's still just a concept that exists solely as a definition, but that's how they get around the dilemma of omnipotence.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
murderbear
Member since Feb 26th 2012
1922 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 07:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "Thanks for that answer, really."
In response to Reply # 45


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 03:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "Ok, He's the answer to your question "
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

>Could he/she create a rock so large that he/she could not
>move it?

I've said it to ColdTruth and other before, these kinds of statements like this, in which people try to put God against himself sound good to some folks that want to be SNARKY or sound really basic deep, but they fail on every level upon deeper analysis. The kind of question was used by the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees when questioning Jesus.

The goal of this kind of question is framed to affirm the premise that God is not omnipotent. The question is framed but a lack of understanding when it comes to the omnipotence of God. Again, it sounds good, but it really nonsense. And my man C.S Lewis once said, “Nonsense is still nonsense even when we speak it about God.” Folks like asking nonsense questions like can the Being of unlimited power produce something to limit Him.

So, let's just deal with the facts. Omnipotence does not mean being able to do the logically impossible or logically contradictory for the God - the creator of Space, Time, and Matter.

The fact is that God cannot create square circles or one ended sticks. God can do anything that’s logically possible - but not logically contradictory. The Lord God can create something out of nothing, He can make divide a sea, make city walls fall, turn a river into blood, cause a virgin to become pregnant, but He can’t make something exist and not exist at the same time, He can’t cause a man to speak and be silent at the same time, and he can't make a newborn baby be 90 years old at the same time. The logically impossible has nothing to do with Omnipotence.




.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 03:54 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "I already answered his question, but thanks"
In response to Reply # 47


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 03:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "You answer was misleading and pedestrian. "
In response to Reply # 49
Mon Dec-10-18 04:02 PM by Case_One

  

          

There is no flaw with omnipotence. The flaw is with peoples ability to understand. And no one has tried to re-defined God as a "maximally great" being. God is able to do all things that are logically possible - fact.

So no one is trying to get around the dilemma of omnipotence. You just don't understand what it really means.



.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:22 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "False, on every possible point. "
In response to Reply # 50


  

          

>There is no flaw with omnipotence.

Yes, there is. This isn't up for debate. At all. You are factually incorrect.

>The flaw is with peoples
>ability to understand. And no one has tried to re-defined God
>as a "maximally great" being.

I love how you cite the inability of people to understand, and then go on to make a factually false statement, because the ontological argument for the existence of god hinges on the concept of "maximal greatness".

>God is able to do all things
>that are logically possible - fact.

You can't cite this as a "fact". You can cite the existence of this argument as a fact, but as you cannot and have not proven the existence of god, you cannot cite the argument itself as a statement of fact.

I could have gone further and explained the flaw in the way the ontological argument is normally presented, because they always skip the fact that omnipotence is included in the concept of "maximal" greatness, and is thus still inherently flawed, but there was no need to go that deep.

The fact that I didn't go down every rabbit hole presented by the flawed nature of the ontological argument hardly makes it a pedestrian response.

>So no one is trying to get around the dilemma of omnipotence.
>You just don't understand what it really means.

Sorry, but no. True omnipotence is a paradox that requires the ability to do things that are not logically possible, and if a being cannot do something that is logically impossible, then that is a demonstrable limitation, which means that said being is not omnipotent.

True omnipotence also requires the ability to commit immoral acts, which actually does support the concept of your god, but that's another rabbit hole you do not want to follow.

Omnipotence is to have unlimited power, and any limit to power means that power is not omnipotent.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "Gist"
In response to Reply # 52


  

          


>Omnipotence is to have unlimited power, and any limit to power
>means that power is not omnipotent.

All of your commentary boils down to this fact, you don't understand omnipotence. Like you cannot understand the fact that God cannot lie because it is not within his nature to lie and yet he is still omnipotent.


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 06:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "Your problem is that I understand perfectly well"
In response to Reply # 54
Mon Dec-10-18 06:26 PM by Cold Truth

  

          

And it's why you avoid dealing with the details at every possible turn.

Because I understand very well the arguments and evasive tactic you so consistently employ.

Sorry, you don't get to use special pleading to reach a definition of omnipotence that hinges on internal consistency. You can't resolve a paradox by creating a tautology, and that's exactly what you're doing here.

Again, where you stick to broad, general terms... not only do I point out the inherent flaw with your assertions, I do so with specificity.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 08:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "Nope. You're STUCK and can't admit it. So just answer #63"
In response to Reply # 62
Mon Dec-10-18 08:23 PM by Case_One

  

          

.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 09:16 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "Riiight so stuck that I consistently point out specific problems "
In response to Reply # 64


  

          

Often times identifying the specific argument and/or logical fallacy you employ, by name.

Your response, time and again, is a broad brush stroke that avoids addressing the specific issues I've pointed out directly, and/or moves to a question that has nothing to do with those points.

Saying I'm "stuck" is laughable.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Garhart Poppwell
Member since Nov 28th 2008
17749 posts
Tue Dec-11-18 09:21 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
81. "God lied when he said he would destroy the gods of Egypt"
In response to Reply # 54


  

          

because a) the god of Egypt is Allah, which is the same god as the Christian god and b) Kemet has no gods, the Neteru are just concepts in nature given a human form so people can tell stories with them

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 11:08 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
88. "Answers"
In response to Reply # 81


  

          



God has never lied and cannot lie. With that said, which scripture are you referring to in your subject "God lied when he said he would destroy the gods of Egypt"? I have an idea, but I don't want to assume before I answer you.




>because a) the god of Egypt is Allah, which is the same god
>as the Christian god


This is not True. Christians and Muslims DO NOT worship the same God

First, Christians believe Jesus is God, but the Quran opposes this belief and condemns those who worship Jesus to Hell (5.72). For Christians, Jesus is certainly God, and for Muslims Jesus is certainly not God.

Second, there is the matter of the Christian and the claim of Fatherhood. According to Jesus, God is our Father, yet the Quran very specifically denies that Allah is a father (112.1-4). In fact, in 5.18, the Quran tells Muslims to rebuke Jews and Christians for calling God their loving Father because humans are just things that God has created.

Third, there is the doctrine of the Trinity. Islam condemns worship of the Trinity (5.73), establishing, in contrast, its own core principle: Tawhid, the absolute oneness of god. Tawhid specifically denies the Trinity, so much so that the doctrine of God in Christianity is antithetical to the doctrine of God in Islam. Not just different but completely opposed to one another.

Therefore, in short, the differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God can be cast solidly based on the evidence mentioned. The Christian God, both in terms of what He is (Triune) and who He is (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not just different from the Muslim god; He is fundamentally incompatible. According to Islam, worshiping the Christian God is not just wrong; it sends you to Hell. They are not the same God.






and b) Kemet has no gods, the Neteru are
>just concepts in nature given a human form so people can tell
>stories with them


.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

murderbear
Member since Feb 26th 2012
1922 posts
Sat Dec-08-18 04:23 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "If Adam and Eve were the first people..."
In response to Reply # 0


          

And they had children, are all remaining descendants a product of incest? Either between siblings, or even worse, mother and son.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
araQual
Charter member
42079 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 05:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
82. "the alternate interpretation of Adam & Eve & the serpent..."
In response to Reply # 43
Wed Dec-12-18 05:04 AM by araQual

  

          

...talks about satan tricking Eve into sleeping with him, on top of coupling with Adam, and creating two diverging bloodlines. same mother, two fathers. one line is of god. one is of the devil. so you get Cain and Abel being from two separate lineages (Cain being the devil's bloodline and Abel being god's bloodline).

so i guess either way it's still a little incesty?

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

My_SP1200_Broken_Again
Charter member
55348 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:17 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
51. "has this ever been a poll in GD ???"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

....just curious how that would play out, especially since voting is anonymous

https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1992-mixtape
https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1993-mixtape
https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1996-mixtape-part-1
https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1996-mixtape-part-2
https://soundcloud.com/djchiefone/1996-mixtape-part-3

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Mon Dec-10-18 04:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "IDK know, but if you make one I'm sure the response would be good"
In response to Reply # 51


  

          

If I ask there may not be a great response.
.
.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

auragin_boi
Member since Aug 01st 2003
20227 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 02:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
83. "Faith vs Logic = Everybody loses"
In response to Reply # 0
Wed Dec-12-18 02:18 PM by auragin_boi

  

          

Faith lacks evidence. One can't actually apply fact to faith. It's believing without seeing, without grasping, without fully understanding. To attempt to explain it is a fallacy because one could never understand something it has no full grasp of.

Logic is limited. One can apply logic but with so much misunderstood, logic only accomplishes to box in instances that allow one to grasp a concept. On many occasions, logic has needed to be re-written and adjusted because new circumstances or evidence has been introduced. As humans, we only know we exist here and have figured out minute insights into the vastness of this grand existence we sludge through. So things we deem logical today, could be illogical tomorrow. To that same premise, logic varies from person to person and is only levied as acceptable on a few common principles (4>3).

I say, "I'm buying insurance just in case something bad happens."
You say, "That's a waste of money as most people don't experience enough bad that simply saving that money for such occasions wouldn't satisfy."

In the end, those that believe in Faith (God) are saying, I want to be prepared, just in case.

Those that believe in logic are saying, life is short, focus on the tangible and provable. Whatever happens after this life is beyond our knowledge and control.

My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in front of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and respect what's beyond you.

Both are ultimately used to control morality and preserve humanity, faith is a bit better at it than logic.

My $0.02 opinion.

____________
My Kids:
https://youtu.be/Tti0SHGkpVk
The W5 – “Swerve”
Official Video

Available on:
https://open.spotify.com/album/5ZkYYasL3k8JlvjyN5w1kL
https://tidal.com/browse/album/95038805
iTunes/Apple Music
Google Play

Thanks4UrSupport

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Case_One
Charter member
53040 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 03:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
85. "I respect your response and truly appreciate you commentary. "
In response to Reply # 83


  

          

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.




.
Current Favorite Song: https://youtu.be/8v_KFHnPImY

"I cannot see how nature could have created itself. Only a supernatural force that is outside of space and time could have done that. ~ Francis Collins

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
40138 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 04:28 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
86. "The problem is that faith does not exist in a vacuum."
In response to Reply # 83


  

          

>Faith lacks evidence. One can't actually apply fact to
>faith. It's believing without seeing, without grasping,
>without fully understanding. To attempt to explain it is a
>fallacy because one could never understand something it has no
>full grasp of.

That's the central issue with faith: that it relies on nothing of actual substance. This isn't necessarily problematic in a vacuum, but the problem is that beliefs do not exist in a vacuum, and our beliefs drive our decisions in the real world.

So if your faith in a particular god drives your overall worldview, and that worldview drives the way you vote, for example, on things like whether or not two people of the same sex can get married, or a woman's right to choose, that's problematic.

If someone is going to decide that their faith in a particular being, and thus the rules and regulations handed down by said being, should be applied not only to oneself as an individual, but to others they share this world with, then their faith is an insufficient foundation to press those views on the rest of us.

>Logic is limited. One can apply logic but with so much
>misunderstood, logic only accomplishes to box in instances
>that allow one to grasp a concept. On many occasions, logic
>has needed to be re-written and adjusted because new
>circumstances or evidence has been introduced.

Going to circle back on this point.

>As humans, we
>only know we exist here and have figured out minute insights
>into the vastness of this grand existence we sludge through.
>So things we deem logical today, could be illogical tomorrow.

I'd like you to expound on this, if you don't mind.

>To that same premise, logic varies from person to person and
>is only levied as acceptable on a few common principles
>(4>3).

I'd say logic is being used rather loosely, and I think "logic vs faith" is potentially a false dichotomy. I'm not sure it's faith vs logic at all. I'd say the actual dichotomy is faith vs evidence.

>I say, "I'm buying insurance just in case something bad
>happens."
>You say, "That's a waste of money as most people don't
>experience enough bad that simply saving that money for such
>occasions wouldn't satisfy."

>In the end, those that believe in Faith (God) are saying, I
>want to be prepared, just in case.

Here's the thing: That insurance policy actual exists, and the terms are clearly written and understood by both parties. You pay X in return for Y in the event of circumstances a, b, and c.

There is no faith involved. There is no mystery to solve.

Further, this insurance policy is specific not in terms of what is covered and under what circumstances, though there may be holes in certain places.

There's a business office for the insurance company, a name to attach the sales person, a paper trail to follow for the payments you've made, terms and conditions, the whole nine.

Further, we can look at tangible numbers, can we not?

I.e, how often do people actually have to make claims on, say, renters insurance.

Lastly, insurance is clearly meant to be just that: Insurance.

It's entire purpose is "just in case", and there is a definite in what you get for your payment for that "just in case". There's a contract. Sure, it's not airtight. Imperfect.

But purchasing insurance is the definitive opposite of faith, because there are checks and balances and verification in place for both parties.

The prospect of faith in a god is that said god *might* or *could* be true, but is much more akin to buying a lottery ticket in actuality.

To keep this practical, if person A makes this choice, and keeps this faith within themselves, cool. But the second person A uses said faith, regardless of the reasoning behind said faith, to imposes laws and rules upon others, that's a no-go.

And that's just once facet of how and why faith can be extremely problematic.

>Those that believe in logic are saying, life is short, focus
>on the tangible and provable.

I'll expound on this. My break is ending soon so I may need to come back to it.

But in general, we go with what we know, believers and non believers alike. The vast majority of theists who had cancer and then went into remission and attribute said remission to god, also went to doctors and underwent treatment.

The vast majority of believers in a god get up and go to work, clock in and out, and get a paycheck, though they'll attribute that income to their particular god.

I do have some more nuanced thoughts on this though, because while I do see certain situations where faith can be beneficial, I still see that in and of itself as a massive net negative. But I'll expound further.

>Whatever happens after this
>life is beyond our knowledge and control.

Agreed. I don't think faith in anything actually changes this though.

>My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in front
>of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and respect
>what's beyond you.

>Both are ultimately used to control morality and preserve
>humanity, faith is a bit better at it than logic.

I'll have to circle back on these points. Break's about up, but I have a lot to say on the morality issue. I'd love to hear your thoughts in response to what I've addressed thus far though.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
auragin_boi
Member since Aug 01st 2003
20227 posts
Wed Dec-12-18 06:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
87. "Damn it CT...this is long lol"
In response to Reply # 86


  

          

>That's the central issue with faith: that it relies on nothing
>of actual substance. This isn't necessarily problematic in a
>vacuum, but the problem is that beliefs do not exist in a
>vacuum, and our beliefs drive our decisions in the real world.
>
>
>So if your faith in a particular god drives your overall
>worldview, and that worldview drives the way you vote, for
>example, on things like whether or not two people of the same
>sex can get married, or a woman's right to choose, that's
>problematic.
>
>If someone is going to decide that their faith in a particular
>being, and thus the rules and regulations handed down by said
>being, should be applied not only to oneself as an individual,
>but to others they share this world with, then their faith is
>an insufficient foundation to press those views on the rest of
>us.

The idea behind faith though is that we all believe in a greater good. As society evolves, some of those principles become dated but the core of them should still be respected.

-The root of opposition to SS marriage is population growth. Prior to modern tech, there was only one way to keep multiplying. We have various ways to achieve this now. Faith says "it's wrong", logic says, the reason why you think it's wrong is dated and won't affect society the way it once could.

-The root of choice vs life is also rooted in the same fears. Additionally, there's the moral dilemma of killing a living thing. While both sides disagree on it, there's rationale behind both stances.

The same way one could see imposing religious laws on society as a bad thing, lots of laws are based on religious morality and changing those laws feels like an attack on established morals. Control vs radicalism. One side feels oppression is bad, the other feels a lack of moral structure is. Both are right. The problem is, Faith and Logic typically fail to compromise. There in lies the best solutions.


>>Logic is limited. One can apply logic but with so much
>>misunderstood, logic only accomplishes to box in instances
>>that allow one to grasp a concept. On many occasions, logic
>>has needed to be re-written and adjusted because new
>>circumstances or evidence has been introduced.
>
>Going to circle back on this point.

Feel free.

>>As humans, we
>>only know we exist here and have figured out minute insights
>>into the vastness of this grand existence we sludge through.
>>So things we deem logical today, could be illogical
>tomorrow.
>
>I'd like you to expound on this, if you don't mind.

Sure, as humans, we want to understand more about existence. But we don't have the capacity to learn as much as we'd like. This limits us in our ability to create certain logical laws beyond our scope. We make assumptions to help us understand things and the more widely accepted, the easier it is for is to try to move on to the next cue and box that in.

As far as logic changing, yesteryear, we though moons were planets, humans couldn't fly, AI was a fantasy. Some think freedom is logical but not so if everyone can attain it. Sometimes, logic fails. Example, tear (cry) and tear (to rip). Two words spelled the same, sound different and have different meanings. That isn't logical but we logically accept that.

>>To that same premise, logic varies from person to person and
>>is only levied as acceptable on a few common principles
>>(4>3).
>
>I'd say logic is being used rather loosely, and I think "logic
>vs faith" is potentially a false dichotomy. I'm not sure it's
>faith vs logic at all. I'd say the actual dichotomy is faith
>vs evidence.

Evidence applied to faith is simply an exercise in logic. In essence, trying to box faith into a logical explanation with proof, when the essence of the word is devoid of proof.

This is like someone saying there's a 'soul' inside their body and someone asks them to prove it. Only way to prove it is to die and even then, the only evidence that there is a 'soul' is that the body no longer functions and the essence of the person is gone forever.

And even then, the living person may not agree on the terminology of 'soul'.

>Here's the thing: That insurance policy actual exists, and the
>terms are clearly written and understood by both parties. You
>pay X in return for Y in the event of circumstances a, b, and
>c.
>
>There is no faith involved. There is no mystery to solve.
>
>Further, this insurance policy is specific not in terms of
>what is covered and under what circumstances, though there may
>be holes in certain places.
>
>There's a business office for the insurance company, a name to
>attach the sales person, a paper trail to follow for the
>payments you've made, terms and conditions, the whole nine.
>
>Further, we can look at tangible numbers, can we not?
>
>I.e, how often do people actually have to make claims on, say,
>renters insurance.
>
>Lastly, insurance is clearly meant to be just that: Insurance.
>
>
>It's entire purpose is "just in case", and there is a definite
>in what you get for your payment for that "just in case".
>There's a contract. Sure, it's not airtight. Imperfect.
>
>But purchasing insurance is the definitive opposite of faith,
>because there are checks and balances and verification in
>place for both parties.
>
>The prospect of faith in a god is that said god *might* or
>*could* be true, but is much more akin to buying a lottery
>ticket in actuality.
>
>To keep this practical, if person A makes this choice, and
>keeps this faith within themselves, cool. But the second
>person A uses said faith, regardless of the reasoning behind
>said faith, to imposes laws and rules upon others, that's a
>no-go.
>
>And that's just once facet of how and why faith can be
>extremely problematic.

You example fails when it comes to life insurance (and in some instances, regular insurance).

1) You agree to pay something in expectation that when the time comes, you'll be taken care of.

2) There's no guarantee the company will be able to take care of you (a myriad of things could go wrong, bankruptcy, fraud, lack of funds to cover your particular issue...even if contractually agreed upon).

3) In the case of life insurance, you're dead, there is no way for you to confirm your wishes were carried out. You just have to believe that the company you paid penance to will honor it's side of the bargain.

To your example, faith is indeed just as you stated it, an 'imperfect contract' to which behaviors and beliefs are attributed with the understanding that once one departs this existence, a better one will rest on the other side for those who abide those behaviors and beliefs.

And logically, we don't know where we were before we got here and we don't know where we go when we leave. That window of ignorance lends to anything being possible.

To your final point, a huge portion of this faith is rooted in love. The only way to understand the final part is to look at yourself as a parent. Your beliefs based on your years of experience allowed you to develop what you see as key things your children need to learn to have a better path through their lives. The only right you have to levy these beliefs is that you created them via your DNA. You have likely created household laws/rules to govern their growth. Ultimately, they won't see some of those rules as fair or logical or relevant but it's what you think is best for their development. They may choose to ignore your rules but that might also make their lives exponentially more difficult.

In the same sense that some parents abuse this power for their own personal benefit, some will do the same with faith. That doesn't discount the value of faith. Context just needs to be applied and a compromise with logic should prevail.


>>Those that believe in logic are saying, life is short, focus
>>on the tangible and provable.
>
>I'll expound on this. My break is ending soon so I may need to
>come back to it.
>
>But in general, we go with what we know, believers and non
>believers alike. The vast majority of theists who had cancer
>and then went into remission and attribute said remission to
>god, also went to doctors and underwent treatment.
>
>The vast majority of believers in a god get up and go to work,
>clock in and out, and get a paycheck, though they'll attribute
>that income to their particular god.
>
>I do have some more nuanced thoughts on this though, because
>while I do see certain situations where faith can be
>beneficial, I still see that in and of itself as a massive net
>negative. But I'll expound further.

Your point here is valid, but there are also people who get cancer and don't win that battle even if they go to the doctor and received treatment. There are also people who got to go to work today and got laid off with no indication it was going to happen.

While some might attribute this to chance or a group of inevitable circumstances, others might see it is favor via faith. Always two sides to that coin.

Ultimately, faith is needed. Humanity fails without faith. Without the small possibility that what we do on Earth, in this existence, matters beyond the moment that we do it in, all of our societal structures fall.

I akin it to a "if you knew you were going to die tomorrow" theory. The things you did today would have less consequence because you wouldn't care about the personal ramifications as much.

You want to know what a world without faith looks like? Let something like the movie 'Deep Impact' play out in real life. Say we don't find out about a comet hurling at Earth until it's too late to do anything about it or it's too huge to do anything about it.

>Agreed. I don't think faith in anything actually changes this
>though.

Didn't say it would change it. But, think, if someone told you to save up because the economy is going to crash but as a keen economist, you looked at the markets like 'there's no proof that it's going to do so, where's your proof?' and the guys is like, 'I don't have any, I just know.'

Do you really wanna be piss broke if the guy is right? Or would you rather at least save something and hope that he's wrong?

>>My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in front
>>of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and
>respect
>>what's beyond you.
>
>>Both are ultimately used to control morality and preserve
>>humanity, faith is a bit better at it than logic.
>
>I'll have to circle back on these points. Break's about up,
>but I have a lot to say on the morality issue. I'd love to
>hear your thoughts in response to what I've addressed thus far
>though.

Feel free.

____________
My Kids:
https://youtu.be/Tti0SHGkpVk
The W5 – “Swerve”
Official Video

Available on:
https://open.spotify.com/album/5ZkYYasL3k8JlvjyN5w1kL
https://tidal.com/browse/album/95038805
iTunes/Apple Music
Google Play

Thanks4UrSupport

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Lobby General Discussion topic #13300371 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com