Religion Sub-Forum Moderation

Could "whacky" be a subjective quality? I'll commit to reducing my "ad hom" (as LG calls it) tendency if LG will decrease his intellectual dishonesty.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where do you find him intellectually dishonest?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only one person is truly complaining about you Skinwalker.
Maybe you should just let him be and go with the flow until he truly does something against the forum rules (spam, insults, etc.)?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Theism is intellectually dishonest.

 

Phlogistician:

How so?

 

Theism is intellectually dishonest.

like so:

If you don't know the answer to a question you can look it up in the bible. If you do know the answer you can check the bible if you are correct.

 

1. Because it relies on faith.
2. Because a belief in a creator god has to excuse itself the question of this supposed god's origins, and therefore does not satisfy the original question 'where did the Universe come from', this is dishonest.
3. Because largely belief in 'god' implies there is only one, and it is the christian god, and there is no reason to suspect this.
4. Because largely people come to the conclusion that it's unlikely that conditions on Earth are 'exactly right' to support life as we know it. This is absurd, if the Earth were different, life would be different. Take deep sea creatures around 'black smokers', surviving intense pressure and heat. Different conditions, different life forms.

I'm sure others will add more reasons.

 

Spuriousmonkey:

That is Christianity, not theism. There is a difference. For instance, our friend LightGigantic is a Hindu.

Phlogistician:

Theism is a philosophical proposition at heart. One needn't have faith in it. However, most people who bleieve in God do have faith.

Actually, most arguments centre on God being necessary.

The greater part of 4 billion people disagree. Theism is not Christianity. One billion Moslems, 700 million Hindus, a billion or so Buddhists, 15 million Jews, all do not affirm this at all.

This is an argument that has developed, maybe, in the last 50 years.

 

There's nothing dishonest nor intellectual about their honest beliefs, is there?

1) Is faith an intellectualism?
2) The excused question about God's origin does not quite originate from their own quarters, no?
3) It would be rather difficult for them to contradict the notion of a single God, no?

 

Cool...so you are saying you can make up any answer in Hinduism? There is no dogma to follow?

 

actually I only engage in down the line scriptural arguments with persons who accept the scriptures as authoratative - on the other side, I mostly utilize the philsoophical elements of the vedas in dealing with atheists.

 

Now this is an eg of intellectual dishonesty - its just another guess at the nature of abiogenesis that is yet to be established (like all other abiogenetic claims) yet it is called upon as a resource as if it was credible

 

Arguing the intellectual dishonesty of theists is not the purpose of this thread.

SkinWalker is a decent moderator and does not need to leave.
Only one person adamantly holds a grudge against him, and it is hardly a majority to remove SkinWalker.

Can we have a vote and get this over with?

 

And this somehow doesn't entail specific answers? Answers that arise from hinduism? Or are you trying to pull my nose here and state that you invented hinduism? That you argue based on your own philosophy? One that isn't handed down to you on a golden platter by the dogmas of hinduism?

Let me guess what you are going to answer. You are going to evade to question by pointing out that atheists don't have original thoughts. That all is taught. My friend, that's ok for atheists. They can just switch between ideas. You can't really can you? That Could end your existence as a theist.

 

Atheists are also stringent and must keep on track: anything that is not religion with a capital R and not atheistic, is unceremoniously relegated to a pseudo quote unquote science category.

 

For the most part, LightGigantic doesn't quote scripture as his proofs, but rather to elaborate on concepts. Although it can be frustrating at times when he takes on a position I find inviable, it is nonetheless a fruitful discourse that if one were willing to take on, would be worth your time.

Anyway, I have no desire to see any of the mods leave in religion, only for a Theist to be represented. I say LG as he is active and a known Theist.

 

spurious monkey

wrong on all counts - here is an eg of what I mean

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9061193

actually I didn't think to bring it up but the thought has occurred to me more than once that there are only about half a dozen different atheistic arguments ventured here (with about two common ones - namely the 'religion as socially constructed' eg or 'its all in your head' eg) - you can find more variety of atheistic arguments ventured in the vedas

Actually I have encountered great resistence from atheists when I presentthe idea that everything is taught - they seem to strongly be convinced that evidence is somehow self evident (which hopefully the encyclopedia brittanica excerpt might establish the foolishness of - of course such foolishness can be exposed by many standard forms of philosophy found in and outside of religion everywhere)

 

Unfortunately, if Skinwalker would answer the same as you, then he would be saying that he would lesson his ad homs if light gigantic would stop being so much of a theist.

Calling theists intellectually dishonest in this light is ridiculous and useless.

That is, of course, unless the purpose of the religious forum here is to cure the theists of their lunacy.
Personally, I've seen the forum as more of a place that bible-bashers can sharpen their knives.

Of course, don't get me wrong. The bible-kissers know this as well (or soon come to learn it) and stick around. They enjoy the conflict as much as the other side.
Interesting to watch. Well, no, not really. I rarely watch. Quite boring, actually.

But, regardless, both sides like kicking the other side in the nuts. Good friendly violent fun in store for all.
In text.

 

Its the nature of debate (oops that right - its a discussion forum) to have two opposing sides and, regardless of your perception of the boredom of it, slipping into ad homming kind of makes it pathetic
eg

"am not"
"are so!"
"am not!!"
"are so!!!"
"am not!!!!"
"are so!!!!!"

at least in real life you might have the delight of actually seeing someone writhing on the pavement clutching their groin, but on the net, ad hom competitions are down there amongst the fungal growths on the backsides of deep sea lobsters

 

No, Theism is the belief in god or gods, so faith and belief are inherent. If you are to debate, make sure you apply the terminology correctly.

What sort of excuse is that? People arrive at 'God' being the answer when they question their own origins. They do then then apply the same question to 'God'. How dishonest is that? Stopping asking questions when the answers appear to be invonvenient?

I didn't say Theism was Christianity, but largely that the god in question was the christian one, who may I remind you, is the very same god that jews believe in. As Allah is the 'one god' too, he must be the veryt same. You must separate the issues dear boy. Religios schizms are based on the same mythologies. But why if there is one fundamental 'truth' are their schizms?