| The God Thang | |
|
•ciceronianus
Gentleman Loser  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 20, 2008 Location: Lloyd's bar in Fredonia Total Topics: 98 Total Posts: 5996 Last Blog: The Fascination of the Battle of the Little Bighorn |
Posted Feb 6, 2012 - 7:50 AM:
Sapientia wrote: You're missing the point. It's a sign of open-mindedness to request arguments in favour of a view that one does not obtain. I think in this case it is merely a challenge to engage in an idle and acrimonious debate. Regardless, though, I think we would all be better off if as to this issue each of us believed, or did not believe, and were silent. Very, very silent. |
|
•xzJoel
Ennui Elucidator Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Aug 30, 2005 Location: New Jersey Total Topics: 74 Total Posts: 346 |
Posted Feb 6, 2012 - 8:22 AM:
ciceronianus wrote: I think in this case it is merely a challenge to engage in an idle and acrimonious debate. Regardless, though, I think we would all be better off if as to this issue each of us believed, or did not believe, and were silent. Very, very silent. That is not helpful, C. If someone believes and that belief is critical to something further, such as their ethics or whether they'll blow you up, then the existence or not existence of the object of their belief is material. It would be nice if private belief had no more consequence than a wet dream, but it has much more import than that. To pretend otherwise is to ignore about 2000 years of Western history.
On Feb 6, 2012 - 10:03 AM, prothero responded:
It is hard to deny the role that religon plays in both history and modern times.
|
|
•consorti
Initiate Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 06, 2012 Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 26 |
Posted Feb 6, 2012 - 8:23 AM:
With all due respect, guys, your discussions cannot be fruitful until you all agree on the definition of God. Numerous definitions exist out there. If you don't agree on it first, your debates would be like debates carried out in different languages without translations. |
|
•ciceronianus
Gentleman Loser Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 20, 2008 Location: Lloyd's bar in Fredonia Total Topics: 98 Total Posts: 5996 Last Blog: The Fascination of the Battle of the Little Bighorn |
Posted Feb 6, 2012 - 8:33 AM:
xzJoel wrote: That is not helpful, C. If someone believes and that belief is critical to something further, such as their ethics or whether they'll blow you up, then the existence or not existence of the object of their belief is material. It would be nice if private belief had no more consequence than a wet dream, but it has much more import than that. To pretend otherwise is to ignore about 2000 years of Western history. My comment was intended to address perpetuating this silly debate, but certainly we would all be better off if each of us not only were silent as to our religious belief or lack of it (which I would think would preclude insisting that others share it or seeking to persuade them to do so) but took no action to impose it or eliminate those who do not share it, as well. The presumptuous desire to impose religious belief has not and will never be lessened by this debate, because the debate is itself vain. |
|
•Sapientia
PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jan 11, 2010 Total Topics: 161 Total Posts: 11878 |
Posted Feb 6, 2012 - 9:29 AM:
ciceronianus wrote: I think in this case it is merely a challenge to engage in an idle and acrimonious debate. Regardless, though, I think we would all be better off if as to this issue each of us believed, or did not believe, and were silent. Very, very silent. That's a value judgement that is relative to your own personal standard, which others may not share. If you have better ways to spend your time, then good for you; but you are the one who ought to be silent, since your tendency to complain, whilst bringing nothing to the table, isn't productive towards philosophical investigation. Edited by Sapientia on Feb 6, 2012 - 9:38 AM |
|
•ciceronianus
Gentleman Loser Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Sep 20, 2008 Location: Lloyd's bar in Fredonia Total Topics: 98 Total Posts: 5996 Last Blog: The Fascination of the Battle of the Little Bighorn |
Posted Feb 6, 2012 - 10:03 AM:
Sapientia wrote: That's a value judgement that is relative to your own personal standard, which others may not share. If you have better ways to spend your time, then good for you; but you are the one who ought to be silent, since your tendency to complain, whilst bringing nothing to the table, isn't productive towards philosophical investigation. So much for open-mindedness. Does the suggestion that a debate is senseless bring nothing to the table? It might be considered a kind effort to encourage others not to waste their time, at least. Certainly I make a value judgment, but not I think based merely on personal standards, unless one maintains that it is the imposition of a "personal standard" to consider the continuance of the debate without resolution for thousands of years (the same old arguments being made and unmade) an indication of its futility. I like to hope there are other, and better, philosophical investigations to be made. |
|
•Sapientia
PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jan 11, 2010 Total Topics: 161 Total Posts: 11878 |
Posted Feb 6, 2012 - 10:51 AM:
ciceronianus wrote: Does the suggestion that a debate is senseless bring nothing to the table? Yes, as I stated, it brings nothing to the table. There are many people who're convinced that there's a god. It's possible that there are grounds for convincing the OP. The OP has requested that other members share these grounds, in order to be assessed. If anything is futile, it's your attempt to cease this philosophical investigation.
On Feb 6, 2012 - 11:03 AM, ciceronianus responded:
That's likely true, alas. But I'll keep checking in; you've made me anticipate his conversion.
On Feb 7, 2012 - 7:12 AM, Sapientia responded:
Don't count your chickens...
|
|
•mayor of simpleton
CATS vs. DOGMA  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 20, 2009 Location: Vienna, Austria Total Topics: 124 Total Posts: 6433 |
Posted Feb 6, 2012 - 12:45 PM:
knucklehead wrote: Look, I don't want to clutter up the religion forum with stuff that spoils their fun. Just tell me this. Use any system of thought you wish: logic, mystic, theological, math, who gives a rat's ass, just convince me of the God Thang. Oh so erudite, Doctor. May I simply ask one thing... why? Another question... Do you feel like you are missing out or perhaps lost something along the way? Meow! GREG |
|
•knucklehead
Forum Veteran Usergroup: Deactivated By Request Joined: Dec 08, 2011 Location: Crocodile infested coast, Australia Total Topics: 15 Total Posts: 690 |
Posted Feb 6, 2012 - 6:33 PM:
Cicero' is almost correct in calling my OP and invitation to an "idle and acrimonious debate," but there is a point to it. And when the Mayor asks why? I answer with the same point. I don't think the god-freaks should go unchallenged on a philosophy forum when they start out saying "God is, God knows, God does," This is not philosophy, it is not debate, and such statements deserve ridicule. You have to remember that these whackos have had it all their own way for several thousand years |
|
•prothero
PF Addict Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Jul 23, 2007 Location: Lake Tahoe Nevada USA Total Topics: 59 Total Posts: 1371 |
Posted Feb 7, 2012 - 6:42 AM:
knucklehead wrote: You might take note that many threads open with questions about the concept of God and about theists beliefs. Many of these threads are started as yours is by people with a more atheistic and materialist worldview but non the less on the surface seem to invite responses from theists. Often I think such threads do not really desire a response from theists but instead wish to open a discussion mocking and ridiculing any form of theistic belief (even those with more naturalistic as opposed to supernatural or revealed theologies) as silly superstitution. Still one should excpect responses regarding various conceptions of divine nature and divine action when one posts a thread invoking discussions of religion and god. You are of course free not to participate in such threads and the forum is free to ban all discussions deemed religious as opposed to philosophical. There is however a field known as philosophy of religion and the vast majority of mankind still harbors a fundamentallly religous worldview and metaphysic still playing an important role in society, politics and history so perhaps such discussions are not totally out of place or lacking in merit. Cicero' is almost correct in calling my OP and invitation to an "idle and acrimonious debate," but there is a point to it. And when the Mayor asks why? I answer with the same point. I don't think the god-freaks should go unchallenged on a philosophy forum when they start out saying "God is, God knows, God does," This is not philosophy, it is not debate, and such statements deserve ridicule. You have to remember that these whackos have had it all their own way for several thousand years 
|
| Recent Internal Replies | |
|---|---|
| On Feb 18, 2012 - 7:54 PM, Gryphon replied internally to knucklehead's By the way, Gryph, o.... | |
| On Feb 18, 2012 - 8:05 AM, Gryphon replied internally to knucklehead's People have been.... | |
| On Feb 16, 2012 - 11:01 AM, Gryphon replied internally to Unexpiritualized's Hmm everything which.... | |
| On Feb 15, 2012 - 6:33 PM, Gryphon replied internally to angslan's Do you actually disa.... | |
| On Feb 15, 2012 - 6:29 PM, angslan replied internally to angslan's Do you actually disa.... | |
| On Feb 15, 2012 - 5:55 PM, Gryphon replied internally to angslan's Do you actually disa.... | |
| On Feb 15, 2012 - 4:57 PM, angslan replied internally to angslan's Do you actually disa.... | |
| On Feb 15, 2012 - 3:59 PM, Gryphon replied internally to angslan's Do you actually disa.... | |
| On Feb 15, 2012 - 1:10 PM, Gryphon replied internally to Luabu's I was thinking about.... | |
| On Feb 15, 2012 - 9:01 AM, Gryphon replied internally to Gryphon's Here is a short argu.... | |
This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.