Should moderation be applied equally - even to theists?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James, several times now I've told you to give up on this 'belief' tack of yours. You are flogging a dead horse. Four people disagree with your silly notion about disbelief and definition, and I'm not described by your narrow terms, so give up. Try something new, and try to make it honest, because all you are doing it proving my point that you cannot argue for theism honestly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

interesting..

"phlogistician, several times now I've told you to give up on this 'gender' tack of yours. You are flogging a dead horse. Four people disagree with your silly notion about 'an honest theist', and God is not described by your narrow terms, so give up. Try something new, and try to make it honest, because all you are doing it proving my point that you cannot argue for atheism honestly."

seriously paraphrasing the thing,not entirely accurate either, but my point is how what you accuse, applies to you too..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James, four people have told you they disagree with your premise. You are stuffing a straw man. Let it go.

 

Check out your ego James! OK, I'm done here. That's all you got, ego laden falsehoods. If you come up with something worth debating, send me a PM or something.

Oh, and NMSquirrel, welcome to my ignore list. Life is too short to engage with you.

 

Much cost, obviously. But that's just it: people here seem more interested in the blogmanship, than the costs. Again, no shortage of excellent examples of this, in this very thread.

Their own, typically.

The thing is that it really isn't a joke, although the style of writing is amusing enough.

 

typical.
stay in the science forums you are much better at debating science than you are about debating God.

 

God isn't real anymore than leprechauns and faeries are real. Leprechauns aren't "inside the box" either. You don't go believing in such horseshit regardless, do you?

 

actually i can argue that leprechauns are inside the box,there is only so much info about leprechauns in the world,there is a limit to what leprechauns can be,
no-one would ever accuse leprechauns of delivering presents on christmas day (at least i do not think Santa Clause is a leprechaun)

God can utilize you whether you believe or not.
(IOW i don't care if you don't believe)
but i do like discussing what i believe..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How do you know what limit there is to leprechauns? How do you know there aren't leprechauns whose powers are beyond your scope of imagination? That would be out of the box. Perhaps there are "omnipotent leprechauns" out there too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No one seems to care what fanciful idiocy you like to discuss.

 

yea so..?

 

James, I asked for something of substance from you, yet all I get is more ego.

Oh, this isn't the debate btw. There wasn't actually supposed to be a debate, but instead you were supposed to be sharing all the reasons why you believe in God, in the other thread, and you've failed miserably to come up with anything anywhere near compelling.

Your single axe to grind here, is your narrow definition of disbelief, and this sorry assumption that your label applies to me, and that you need definition to disbelieve according to your narrow view of it. Several people have told you this is bogus, yet you still stuff the straw man. I'm not copping out, I'm just refusing to waste any more time on your fallacies.

 

The substance of debate is simply a pretext for exercises in establishing/maintaining the status hierarchy. Note James' obvious disinterest in the actual subject - he's clearly in it to prove one thing, and one thing only, which is that JamesR is of higher social status here than you are. That is the only thing at issue.

Nobody here debates according to whatever classical ideal of good-faith exchanges of ideas and revisions of one's own thoughts. Or, a few do, but they find themselves played as dupes by those interested in showing off their impenetrable egos. It's actually kind of shocking that the pretense of "honest discussion" still has any traction here, given that it never seems to actually materialize, and is so transparently maintained as a ploy for blogmanship.

See also: the backfire effect.

A pithy classic: "always right, but seldom correct."

 

No.

No.

No, not according to your narrow definition. I lack belief, that is all. Same as you do in Quetzalcoatl, you just don't want to admit it.

I said it already. I lack belief in an infinite number of undefined things, and also, a fair number of badly defined ones. You lack belief in gods that are lost to history James, and ones that aren't Don't be obtuse. You know this is true.

Let me explain this simply to you, using a modern example. There are lots of recording artists out there, producing music. Hundreds of thousands of albums. Many of which you have not even heard of, let alone heard. Do you like, or dislike these albums you have never heard? You cannot say. You cannot be pressed into saying you 'dislike' them, because you do not 'like' them, can you?

So just in the same way, I will not be pressed into saying I 'disbelieve' when I just don't 'believe' .

I don't think I can make it clearer to you, it's not a binary position.

 

I think he made his point quite clearly. I'm guessing he realised saying it over and over was flogging a dead horse however.

There was no need to load you prose with the word 'admit' either, that was an attempt at a low blow. I clearly stated I had no definition, Quadraphonics agreed with my position. There was no admission, it was an up front statement.

 

I think you're behaving like an insufferable prick, as usual.

And I think it's obvious that you engage in such "discussions" for the sole purpose of so behaving, to begin with.

I don't think phlogistician is defenseless. I think he's made the mistake of assuming that you are a respectable, honorable person with whom a good-faith debate can be conducted. He seems to have discovered his mistake there, and so I'm letting him know that he isn't the first to notice these features of your persona, and that your attempts to blame such outcomes on his failings are just that.

... was that bit of dick-waving supposed to somehow conflict with my characterization of you? You're somewhere on the continuum between disgusting and pathetic.

Did you get bullied a lot as a child, or something? Where does this aggressive insecurity stem from? Overbearing father who took glee in humiliating you at any opportunity, maybe? Plain old narcissism? Why this need to be King of the Shitheads?

But, yeah, your ugly little program here does require a wider response from the community, if it's to be anything other than wantonly destructive to everyone else. I guess you realize that, given your venomous, goading response to such.

Good for you. For my part, I notice that said exchange dead-ended almost immediately, and that you evince a clear interest in pursuing such stalemates as a pretense for your usual craven blogsmanship. And I expect that anyone worth caring about the opinion of, also so notices.

Which is your prerogative, I suppose, but did you really think I'd take this bait? You're going to have to try a bit harder than that, at this late juncture.

Already did that, and see no point in repetitively belaboring such. Clearly that's what you want, since it provides you a pretext to condescend and abuse (i.e., as long as I'm arguing it, I'm implying that the question is open, and that I'm inviting your input).

And as far as that goes, I'm not even convinced that you actually subscribe to the position you're arguing - regardless, your interest is in the opportunity to misbehave. Those who might be interested in the substance of that issue have already heard what I have to say, and I'm content with that. At this point, I'm only interested in throwing wrenches into the works of your mean little game.

Why do you so frequently utilize this tactic? Attempting to obtain further buy-in from your targets, by prompting them to recharacterize the exchange, or what? That's a mug's game in the first place, not to mention the admission that all of that energy and spite you've been pouring into the exchange for the past however-many pages really was for its own sake, to the point where you can't even keep the putative topic in sight.

Or, to take the blogman's way out: perhaps when I have some free time, I'll jot off a few notes for you to study.