Side Gallery: LuthAMF vs Joshpantera

[midniterider]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It appears that Luth believes life to be meaningless without the existence of, specifically, the christian god.  It may be true that his own life would be meaniness without his beliefs; but to put forth the claim that jesus exists because all life is meaningless otherwise is much too far of a leap for intellectually honest individuals.  What of the millions who find meaning in the Dharma, the Koran, or more secular, humanistic pursuits?

 

He conceives your view to be irrational, but does not explain why. 

 

edit below:

 

Accordingly, we do not seek to prove Christian theism but only try to show that we can find no meaning in our human experience unless there be a self-sufficient God to give it meaning."

 

So a Christian can find no meaning in their lives unless there is a possibly fictional self-sufficient God to give it meaning. It's ok to believe in a God that might not exist. Reality is optional while faith is the higher priority. 

 

I'm glad my life can have whatever meaning I assign to it. It's just my own personal preference. 

[Joshpantera]

I’m rolling through South Georgia. I’ll have a response on the main debate this evening when I get up to the mountians. Thank you Luth for hanging in there and pushing forward. 

[Astreja]

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 I will not be responding much if at all in this Side Gallery but let's put something to rest right now that should have already been seen with a more careful perusal.

"Moreover a position which reduces our experience to chaos cannot claim the adherence of rational creatures. That is, our basis for rejecting certain views is always that we conceive them to be irrational."

The above quote from RNP is rejected as we conceive it to be irrational.

 

Irrational?  Heeheeheeheehee!  You worship an undead god-man who supposedly sacrificed himself to protect properly deferential humans from the aftereffects of unauthorized fresh fruit consumption at the behest of a helpful Talking Snake™, and you have the nerve to call RNP "irrational"?

 

(exits stage right, still giggling)

[florduh]

On 5/24/2019 at 3:32 AM, Christforums said:

I get it, most here on this board have only engaged Christianity under the guise of horrible translators, theologians, charismatic leaders, and cultist churches.

Yep, there it is. With all our varied experiences with Christianity, none of us ever encountered the True Christianity, otherwise we would still be believers. Fuck off, you self righteous, pompous twit.

[LuthAMF]

3 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

Irrational?  Heeheeheeheehee!  You worship an undead god-man who supposedly sacrificed himself to protect properly deferential humans from the aftereffects of unauthorized fresh fruit consumption at the behest of a helpful Talking Snake™, and you have the nerve to call RNP "irrational"?

 

(exits stage right, still giggling)

Had you read the entirety of the quotation, you would know to whom it is referring. Based upon RNP's faulty assumption, he is being irrational. 

 

Like I said,  will not be spending effort here. It's all yours.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Based upon RNP's faulty assumption, he is being irrational. 

There is a difference between objective observation and faulty assumption.  Were there anything actually faulty or irrational about my post, you'd be able to explain it to us all, instead of merely asserting that it was so.  Instead, you are attempting to be clever by using my own "tactics" against me.  You're smart; but you're not that smart, son.

[LuthAMF]

7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is just an overly verbose way of saying, "I disagree with your view, but cannot refute it; therefore i will dismiss it as irrational."

 

Lurkers, observe this "tactic" and ask yourselves, "Is this defense the best my religion has to offer?"

"It appears that Luth believes life to be meaningless without the existence of, specifically, the christian god." 

It "appears" to YOU. Enough said. But please show me where I said or implied that. You can't. So don't bother.

"It may be true that his own life would be meaniness without his beliefs;"

Says who?

"but to put forth the claim that jesus exists because all life is meaningless otherwise is much too far of a leap for intellectually honest individuals."

Who has put forth that claim? It's your own concocted absurdity to state it that way. I (we) never look upon humanity as meaningless because there is a REASON for it. OF COURSE there is meaning in life across all spectrums. Which is the point of the quotation. Meaninglessness, OR the position which reduces our experience to chaos !  

 

So for you to assume that as my position falls to it's irrational death  as is stated: That is, our basis for rejecting certain views is always that we conceive them to be irrational."

Your "certain view" is irrational.

Need more 'splaining, Lrucy?

 

So, the lurkers probably needed no explanation and question your "verbosity" in making an issue of it.

 

But my debate is not with you so do and say what you will. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

35 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

But please show me where I said or implied that. You can't. So don't bother.

Without the conception of a self-sufficient God our human experience would be meaningless. 

This is direct from your quote in your debate with Josh.  You said it; you implied it; you even quoted somebody else saying and implying it.  So I bothered. 

 

35 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

"It may be true that his own life would be meaniness without his beliefs;"

Says who?

Said me.  And, for you, it may be true.

 

35 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Who has put forth that claim? It's your own concocted absurdity to state it that way.

The origin, preservation and destiny of the phenomenal world have their explanation in God only.

 

Accordingly, we do not seek to prove Christian theism but only try to show that we can find no meaning in our human experience unless there be a self-sufficient God to give it meaning.

 

Again, taken directly from your quote.  Again YOU put forth this claim, by quoting somebody else who put forth this claim.

 

35 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Meaninglessness, OR the position which reduces our experience to chaos !  

This is a false dichotomy.  I know you're not very good with logic; and your quote even admits to it.  So I'll explain: there are more options than either meaninglessness or chaos.  For example, a position which transcends your experience into enlightenment. 

 

35 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Your "certain view" is irrational.

Yet you have still failed at explaining how my post is irrational.  You've done nothing more here than invite me to throw your own quote back at you.  

 

I made an objective observation that the quote you posted, and you agree with, claims life is meaningless unless the christian god exists.  I stated that such may be the case for you; but to claim that jesus exists or else life is meaningless was too much of a stretch.  I concluded with another objective observation that millions have found meaning without jesus.

 

Now SHOW US what part of that was faulty or irrational.

35 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

So, the lurkers probably needed no explanation and question your "verbosity" in making an issue of it.

I doubt that, as I am a little more familiar with the kind of people who lurk here.  They are generally the not kind of people who will consider something irrational just because you say it is.

[LuthAMF]

The main logical point that binds the argument was ignored (or is beyond you). Eat it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

ad hominem is a classless attempt at saving face when unable to defend one's own position nor refute another's.  

[LuthAMF]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

ad hominem is a classless attempt at saving face when unable to defend one's own position nor refute another's.  

That wasn't ad hominem. 

Eat it.

[sdelsolray]

Two narcissistic little shit theists in one thread.  How quaint.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

Two narcissistic little shit theists in one thread.  How quaint.

One of whom has said repeatedly that he is not going to put any further effort into this thread... yet keeps coming back.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

That wasn't ad hominem. 

Eat it.

How was my post irrational, Luth?  You could not demonstrate that it was, so instead made the comment that the main "logical" point of your quote was beyond me.

 

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

You could neither support your own assertion nor refute my position, so you stooped to implying that my intelligence must be questionable.  This is classic ad hominem.  

 

Again, just because you make a claim ("RNP is irrational"; "That wasn't ad hominem") doesn't automatically make your claim true.  Pretending it does is why you get called out for making unfounded assertions. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 I will not be responding much if at all in this Side Gallery 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Like I said,  will not be spending effort here. It's all yours.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

What's it called when someone says they aren't going to do something, but they keep doing it anyway?  

[midniterider]

 

[Astreja]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What's it called when someone says they aren't going to do something, but they keep doing it anyway?  

 

One could charitably call it a lack of self-control, rather than outright lying.  Neither one paints a particularly flattering picture.

[LuthAMF]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What's it called when someone says they aren't going to do something, but they keep doing it anyway?  

You are so predictable.

Yes, I originally said " I will not be responding much if at all in this Side Gallery." And then "Like I said,  will not be spending effort here. It's all yours." TO ASTREJA, not to you. Have i responded to Astreja again? No.

 

Do you recall stating these are public domain forums? Do you also note that up until late last night my response in the debate was the last one posted? As I awaited Josh's next reply, I took the time to comment on yet another misrepresentation of the Christian view which was explained by the quote from the debate forum which you ignored or didn't understand. That is not as hominem. Had I said "which is beyond you" THAT would have been ad hominem.

 

I would take you back to the full post of the debate and have you explain what you think is being said but I've already had my fill of your bilge.

 

Again, I said "I will not be spending much if at all..."

Do you get to determine how much that is? No. So now...Eat it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

22 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It appears that Luth believes life to be meaningless without the existence of, specifically, the christian god.  It may be true that his own life would be meaniness without his beliefs; but to put forth the claim that jesus exists because all life is meaningless otherwise is much too far of a leap for intellectually honest individuals.  What of the millions who find meaning in the Dharma, the Koran, or more secular, humanistic pursuits?

 

19 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

 I will not be responding much if at all in this Side Gallery but let's put something to rest right now that should have already been seen with a more careful perusal.

"Moreover a position which reduces our experience to chaos cannot claim the adherence of rational creatures. That is, our basis for rejecting certain views is always that we conceive them to be irrational."

The above quote from RNP is rejected as we conceive it to be irrational.

This was said directly to me, not Astreja.  Have you continued responding to me?  Yes, you have.

[LuthAMF]

16 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

Irrational?  Heeheeheeheehee!  You worship an undead god-man who supposedly sacrificed himself to protect properly deferential humans from the aftereffects of unauthorized fresh fruit consumption at the behest of a helpful Talking Snake™, and you have the nerve to call RNP "irrational"?

 

(exits stage right, still giggling)

 

12 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Had you read the entirety of the quotation, you would know to whom it is referring. Based upon RNP's faulty assumption, he is being irrational. 

 

Like I said,  will not be spending effort here. It's all yours.

THERE is the quote to Astreja. 

"Like I said,  will not be spending effort here. It's all yours." It's all yours." To Astreja. Not to you. And now, never again. So eat it. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

47 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

 

THERE is the quote to Astreja. 

"Like I said,  will not be spending effort here. It's all yours." It's all yours." To Astreja. Not to you. And now, never again. So eat it. 

We'll see about that.  Around here, we take honesty pretty seriously, likely because "thou shalt not lie" was beaten into our heads from a young age.  It is bad enough that you made yourself into a liar by continuing to post after you claimed you weren't going to be "responding much, if at all."  Worse still you continue to lie by trying to pretend you were only talking to Astreja and not to me.  A lie you have repeated now, twice.  Astreja was diplomatic enough to describe you as lacking self control.  I'm not that nice.

 

You are a liar.

[Astreja]

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

 

THERE is the quote to Astreja. 

"Like I said,  will not be spending effort here. It's all yours." It's all yours." To Astreja. Not to you. And now, never again. So eat it. 

 

And yet you keep quoting and referencing  me, and you falsely assumed that I had not read the entire quote.

[Joshpantera]

20 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

He conceives your view to be irrational, but does not explain why. 

 

edit below:

 

Accordingly, we do not seek to prove Christian theism but only try to show that we can find no meaning in our human experience unless there be a self-sufficient God to give it meaning."

 

So a Christian can find no meaning in their lives unless there is a possibly fictional self-sufficient God to give it meaning. It's ok to believe in a God that might not exist. Reality is optional while faith is the higher priority. 

 

I'm glad my life can have whatever meaning I assign to it. It's just my own personal preference. 

 

This is where we stand in the debate. 

 

It's a smart move to stand back and not try and prove anything, when you have nothing that you can prove. And my intentions here are solely aimed at truth seeking and teasing the truth out of this interaction for people to read through and witness. These guys are unable to prove any of these claims, basically. That's what it boils down to. Whether or not science can absolutely prove anything either doesn't matter. Because the truth could be that everyone only has speculation to go on. And between all of these speculations, which are more bogged down with contradiction and inconsistencies? Is it possible to show that one option is far less likely than another? 

 

I may say something that leads to Luth suddenly seeing the light and getting it, like we all did at some point in our own pasts. But maybe not. It doesn't really matter which way that goes. All that matters is that we provide something that curious and questioning people can read through and decide for themselves which options make more sense, or feel right for that matter. What are the readers intuitive feelings about these interactions between myself, Luth and William? 

 

If they think that having faith in something contradictive that makes no sense is a good choice, so be it. 

 

I tend to see that as misguided faith, personally. I don't see any good reason to have faith in the first apriori assumption. Because I know that it's an unnecessary apriori assumption. And that may be where the debate is headed to next. I can prove that it's an unnecessary apriori assumption by simply providing an alternative to the apriori assumption. Establishing that it's not the ONLY option on the table. We can tease that out further if Luth wishes to go here.