Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

A Christian Framework


Wololo

Recommended Posts

Somebody has a bee in his bonnet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you all refuse to define your terms, there is no discussion. Everyone lives with a philosophical framework for their beliefs, even if it is a simple one. This is just laziness. You're more concerned with jokes than you are with serious thought. Prove me wrong.

 

I'm mad? hahahahahahahaha no, I just shake my head and laugh. Stop giving intelligent and respectful atheists a bad name. I know you can do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terms.. easy peasy. Make an assertion, back it up with evidence.

 

Objective, testable.. or mathematical, doesn't matter as long as it can be supported. Assumptions are useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh… and actually read the replies. That's always helpful.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wants us to provide him with a philosophy that he can argue with. The simple truth is that it's hard for a religious person to comprehend that having a philosophy is not necessary. I don't have a philosophy. Philosophies are not dogmas to argue, they are tools for understanding.

 

Wololo if you want to debate a substantive issue, please state your proposition and define your terms. If you can't, there's nothing to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a philosophy either, I don't think. There are bits and pieces of wisdom that I have tested and found work for me, but an encompassing philosophy? No.. there's far too much new to learn everyday for anything that rigid in my life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is looking more and more like a SteveBennett clone.  

 

1)  He started off with dozens of mere assertions.  When asked to define some terms, such as his "God", he refused (actually, he claimed he was incapable).  When asked to provide evidence for his mere assertions, he claimed either (i) many of his mere assertions could not be demonstrated with empirical evidence, or (ii) he would provide evidence for them, please wait, it's just around the corner.

 

2)  Next, he produced a more or less rambling and incoherent tome of his philosophy as his evidence (see the first post in this thread).  It was full of more mere assertions.

 

3)  Along the way, he used other logical fallacies (besides his dozens and dozens of mere assertions), such as at least one false dichotomy, incessant special pleading, an affirming the consequent, among others.  He even promised to invoke an argument from authority, claiming he would reveal his special authorities later (apparently when the time was right).  He has yet to do so.  When challenged, he usually deflected or ignored.

 

4)  Next, as predicted, he demanded control of the debate (Calvinist wannabe??), claiming he can't expose his own philosophy unless other posters first reveal their philosophies to him.  'Show me yours and I'll show you mine'.  Cute.  Of course, this was after he already earlier promised to display his without condition…indeed, exposing his "philosophy" was an integral part of his argument.  It was his "evidence".  Apparently not after all.

 

5)  Now he's playing the Christian Persecution Card™.

 

As stated before, this one is not ready for prime time.  His "arguments" are full of shit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No God requires faith...." Sounds like a lame "atheism is a religion" argument.

Here's my philosophical view: I'm alive, but that's temporary. Argue with that.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this considered 'intellectualism' at the Christian level?

 

My daughter has a term for this.. she calls it, "smarticle".

 

 

 

I challenged SteveBennet to start a formal debate once… he refused/ignored the invitation. (*cough*chickened out).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
 I know you can do better.

 

Do what? It is you who has the assertion to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my philosophical view: I'm alive, but that's temporary. Argue with that.

 

Damn, par.  You're cute!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you all refuse to define your terms, there is no discussion.

 

And now he is projecting.  Why am I not surprised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they've never had their ideas actually confronted seriously before by those who can identify bad reasoning and logical fallacies?

 

You know… "blah, blah blah, random unrelated philosophical idea, blah blah… some famous persons name or quotation..blah blah blah… assumption based reason, blah blah… big, hard to spell word… that's why I'm right, blah.. rinse, repeat, ignore replies and requests for clarification, rinse, repeat", ad nauseum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Let's refrain from ad hominem. We all know it's not logical and it doesn't add to the discussion. Stop acting like silly teenagers.

 

 

I laughed out loud when I read this.  You're getting desperate now.

 

 

Do you know what ad hominem is? If you're resorting to jokes and mockery about your opponent, you're not being logical. It's immature. The "go Google Descartes" comments are unnecessary. The arrogance here is clouding your minds. You personally said you don't understand the science, and then proceeded to form an opinion about how I was talking pseudo-science. Don't talk about things you've said you don't know about.

 

Yes I do actually, I just don't think we were attacking you.

 

I did not say I don't understand the science, I said this:

 

 

 

Let's avoid logical fallacies please. You call it pseudo-science. Prove it.

I know nothing about the Big Bang or the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I'm a liberal arts major.  But even I can tell that your extensive word salads are pseudo-science.  And I can tell when someone is attempting to shift the burden of proof.  You are the one making the extraordinary claim that the entity you have faith in actually exists.  You are the one who needs to "prove it".

 

I choose not to read about the Big Bang or the 2nd law of thermodynamics because I trust those who have spent their working lives studying this stuff.  I don't think you have.  It is not necessary for me to know about specific areas of science to be able to know when someone is talking out of their ass.  You have been invited, several times, to back up your mere assertions with evidence, and you haven't.  We're still waiting.

 

My comment was about you trying to shift the burden of proof, which you are still doing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest afireinside

Wololo to my uneducated mind it seems you've drilled a lot of philosophical pilot holes but don't have any screws to construct a sturdy framework.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To tell the truth, I really don't understand what you are talking about. Whatever it is, will you please explain how your philosophy fits in with the stories of god in the OT. That's something tangible we understand. How does your philosophy explain or justify the various genocides god directed in the OT? How does it justify any of the atrocities described in the OT which were either done by or directed by god.  bill

 

"I'll come back to this when I have time and I'm not on break. Maybe if people would listen instead of poking fun, they would start to understand where I"m coming from, even if they don't agree. "  Wololo

 

Don't forget about me just because you and others are going back and forth about other things. But remember, things that can 

neither be proved nor disproved are mere speculations at worst and only opinions at best.   bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has become illogical and none of you are actually listening. Can you 'stop' for a moment and listen?

 

1) I have backed up the truck here to move the discussion outside of God temporarily due to the loud protesting that I was making an assertion without backing it up. I understood and agreed that we could back up so that the foundation could be discussed. If you feel I'm making assertions (which you do), then point them out, and I will step back to address them.

 

2) Rather than accepting that I had agreed to the terms, instead you're continuing to come after me (which is ad hominem because you're addressing me and not my arguments.)

 

3) I fully intend to explain the assertion (and the others), but I need to know where you stand in order to do so. I made a blind attempt to explain the general structure of my beliefs, and clearly since they are so vastly different from yours, it came across as a bunch of further assertions. I'm willing to back up further, but clearly you're not. This is why I have to know what you generally believe.

 

4) I DO assert that all of you have a philosophical framework, even if you don't consciously spend time thinking about it. It doesn't have to be rigid. It's still a general framework. If you can't explain to me in philosophical terms what you believe, then you can't discuss philosophy with me. If you're so 'educated' about philosophy, then you know full well what your beliefs are and you're just trolling me.

 

5) Controlling the debate? Hahaha. Yes, my philosophy is integral to the discussion and to my beliefs, but if you don't tell me what you believe philosophically, I'm giving you free reign to push and pull me all over the place. I'm just putting my foot down and saying enough. If you're not going to share info with me about how you think, I'm not going to discuss. There's no point.

 

6) I have said nothing about persecution. You're just being unreasonable...as a regular person. None of you have demonstrated that you can debate like a civilized human being or in fact, that you know anything about science or philosophy. I take that back. There has been one person that has posted a few links that I'll have a look at. Aside from that, it's been mockery and ignorance.

 

I expected better from such a vibrant community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally ready to prove or explain my assertions, but you won't let me know what you think yourselves. Everyone I have ever discussed philosophy with (plenty of nonbelievers like you. They seemed to be intelligent and well educated. Can't say the same here) has provided me with a nice, well explained general idea of how they think the world works to them. That's because they know philosophy. It's not a matter of dogma to be defended. It's just that they actually knew about the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has become illogical and none of you are actually listening. Can you 'stop' for a moment and listen?

 

1) I have backed up the truck here to move the discussion outside of God temporarily due to the loud protesting that I was making an assertion without backing it up. I understood and agreed that we could back up so that the foundation could be discussed. If you feel I'm making assertions (which you do), then point them out, and I will step back to address them.

 

2) Rather than accepting that I had agreed to the terms, instead you're continuing to come after me (which is ad hominem because you're addressing me and not my arguments.)

 

3) I fully intend to explain the assertion (and the others), but I need to know where you stand in order to do so. I made a blind attempt to explain the general structure of my beliefs, and clearly since they are so vastly different from yours, it came across as a bunch of further assertions. I'm willing to back up further, but clearly you're not. This is why I have to know what you generally believe.

 

4) I DO assert that all of you have a philosophical framework, even if you don't consciously spend time thinking about it. It doesn't have to be rigid. It's still a general framework. If you can't explain to me in philosophical terms what you believe, then you can't discuss philosophy with me. If you're so 'educated' about philosophy, then you know full well what your beliefs are and you're just trolling me.

 

5) Controlling the debate? Hahaha. Yes, my philosophy is integral to the discussion and to my beliefs, but if you don't tell me what you believe philosophically, I'm giving you free reign to push and pull me all over the place. I'm just putting my foot down and saying enough. If you're not going to share info with me about how you think, I'm not going to discuss. There's no point.

 

6) I have said nothing about persecution. You're just being unreasonable...as a regular person. None of you have demonstrated that you can debate like a civilized human being or in fact, that you know anything about science or philosophy. I take that back. There has been one person that has posted a few links that I'll have a look at. Aside from that, it's been mockery and ignorance.

 

I expected better from such a vibrant community.

Me Me Me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it too much to ask exactly what it is you want to debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest afireinside

Shit happens, the good can die young, the evil can get wealthy, ordinary people do messed up things and God is not a part of any of this. Philosophers are perpetual self pleasurers who like big words and adoration, they talk a lot of horseshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally ready to prove or explain my assertions, but you won't let me know what you think yourselves. Everyone I have ever discussed philosophy with (plenty of nonbelievers like you. They seemed to be intelligent and well educated. Can't say the same here) has provided me with a nice, well explained general idea of how they think the world works to them. That's because they know philosophy. It's not a matter of dogma to be defended. It's just that they actually knew about the subject matter.

You tend to forget the crowd with whom you chose to attempt this discourse. We are not just nonbelievers. It is that which you seem not to understand. We are those who were true believers probably much as you are now and perhaps for some of us far more fundamental believers than you. We not only participated In church, but many of us were church leaders. We studied the Bible intently and know it far better than the vast majority of Christians ever knew it. We really thought it was all true. And then, in various ways, we came to see we had been deceived and that Christianity is a filthy lie.

 

That, my friend, is why we don't accept what someone who comes here to "enlighten" us says. That is why we demand evidence. We have been deceived once and never shall be deceived again.

 

Rather than complain about how you have been treated since you voluntarily entered our domain, why don't you back up your claims and address the issues that have been raised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

assertion # 1    god exists

 

start there…. thanks!

 

 

Oh.. and I'd be mighty interested if you have the ability to tell me what my philosophy is, that would be quite a trick  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My philosophy:

 

Ideas should stand or fall on their own merit.  If one idea is going to overturn another or several others than the concept must have superior merit.

 

 

Great claims require great objective evidence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reject your response. Voltaire - "Define your terms." If you won't share your own philosophy, I cannot share mine properly. I need to know what the opposition holds to. I cannot frame my beliefs for you without knowing what your own stance is and how you think.

 

Why not? Does your sales pitch philosophy change depending on my philosophy?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.