The others...

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I have plenty more to say on it. I started this thread so as not to get into an argument. Unfortunately this started to happen. I'm putting an end to it on my part. I'd far prefer people to discuss the individual reasons people have for either or for people to respond to post 83 and get on with a reasonable sharing of ideas.

As for "logic". This isn't a universal, it's a particular for you. Lets have that straight before we have the same mumbo jumbo that we usually start having here.

I'm not interested in petty arguments, I'm far more interested in actually doing something that could be semi-productive. That's why I started this and the gripes thread. Both have been dissapointing, this one less so than the gripes thread. I do want to thank all who actually gave this idea a shot instead of complaining about it.

I would also appreciate it if you stop trolling me. 6 and 7 are entirely valid reasons and indicating for faith or God's lack of existence is the only way we can actually do it. I will discuss this on another thread if necessary. You have already broken the agreement we made however concerning the means of discussion I asked you not to get into a "winning" or "losing" argument. The God question is not as simple as that.

You say you didn't want an argument but you were the one who brought up the point that archaeological sites indicate god's existence. Could it be that you just wanted to give us your opinions and not have anyone challenge them? Seems to me someone who just didn't want an argument wouldn't bring up contentious opinions at all, rather than just objecting to people responding to them.

I haven't broken the agreement at all. It specified that you would not stop responding to people who were responding to your points and then making the same points later and that you would not avoid questions with excuses, both of which you have done here. Asking that you hold up your end of the agreement is not breaking my end, neither is it trolling.

I will indeed be starting a new thread on it shortly. All you've done here is restate what you believe, you have yet to explain the flaw in the logic of my responses in either case

philologos

Sam read the post and you'll find that I was not the one who brought it up I was responding to a quotation. All I actually said was I'd divide the reasons of basis in Christian history and Resurrection, from archaeology. As such liamw was the first to raise it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60089408&postcount=71

BTW, I may also note, I do not have to respond to anything from you if I do not wish to respond to it. I'm increasingly getting fed up of our mode of discussion. I already told you I won't be getting into discussions on a "win" or "lose" basis. I asked you not to do this, yet you persist thus ruining the actual intention of the thread.

Flamed Diving

Your belief system: N/A

How do you think that believers justify being believers?

1) Infantile indoctrination.
2) Fear of death
3) Cannot accept life without purpose
4) Cannot accept life without ultimate fairness/judgement
5) Cannot accept life without universal rules
6) Penchant for monocausal reasoning
7) Joy of being part of something bigger than individual
8) Belief system genuinely improves their life
9) Since number 1), individual has never really questioned it, perhaps due to 8)
10) Fear of being sent to hell

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam read the post and you'll find that I was not the one who brought it up I was responding to a quotation. All I actually said was I'd divide the reasons of basis in Christian history and Resurrection, from archaeology. As such liamw was the first to raise it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60089408&postcount=71

Fair enough. But you can't expect to be able to tell us all about your beliefs on the atheism forum and not have anyone respond to you. That's not how discussion forums work. If you want that, start a blog

Jakkass wrote: »

BTW, I may also note, I do not have to respond to anything from you if I do not wish to respond to it. I'm increasingly getting fed up of our mode of discussion. I already told you I won't be getting into discussions on a "win" or "lose" basis. I asked you not to do this, yet you persist thus ruining the actual intention of the thread.

You absolutely do not have to respond to anything anyone says, that is entirely your choice. However, you ask that people show you respect. If you want people to show you respect, you have to respond to their points. Someone who constantly preaches their own beliefs and literally ignores anyone who points out the flaws in them is not someone who deserves respect. I am equally fed up of this mode of discussion. The intention of the thread appears to be "Jakkass tells us his beliefs"

You say you don't want discussions on a win, lose basis so what exactly do you want? We both have contradictory positions here so I don't know of any way to carry out the discussion other than you make a point, I say why I disagree with it and you respond to either correct me or agree with me etc.

Actually, there is one other alternative I can see. That's the one where you tell all of us your opinions and we all say "You're absolutely right Jakkass, you have now converted me". I am not trying to be antagonistic here, I honestly can't see any other way to carry out the conversation other than point and counter point

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Fair enough. But you can't expect to be able to tell us all about your beliefs on the atheism forum and not have anyone respond to you. That's not how discussion forums work. If you want that, start a blog

I never said that. I respond and discuss fairly and reasonably with several other people. I just am finding it incredibly difficult to tolerate your particular mode of discussion. It's not about other atheists. It's not about the group it's about the particular.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You absolutely do not have to respond to anything anyone says, that is entirely your choice. However, you ask that people show you respect. If you want people to show you respect, you have to respond to their points. Someone who constantly preaches their own beliefs and literally ignores anyone who points out the flaws in them is not someone who deserves respect. I am equally fed up of this mode of discussion. The intention of the thread appears to be "Jakkass tells us his beliefs"

I'm not referring to just anyone. Indeed, people should show other people respect as common courtesy.

I respond to most peoples points, when it comes to many to one. I find it rather difficult to do this naturally. I'm not going to respond to your points if you are incapable of learning some manners. I don't feel that warrants a response to be quite frank with you Sam.

I don't preach my beliefs at all. I've even openly said that I respect that it is the individuals choice whether or not to accept Christ or not. I believe that God calls people to salvation, I don't as I'm on exactly the same standing as you with God.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say you don't want discussions on a win, lose basis so what exactly do you want? We both have contradictory positions here so I don't know of any way to carry out the discussion other than you make a point, I say why I disagree with it and you respond to either correct me or agree with me etc.

I can't help but think that your sole purpose is to come here and attempt to convince me to lose my faith. Other posters don't adopt this style. They take out discussions in their stride. They don't bark out commands to other users. I've had several cordial discussions here before, it just seems that you aren't willing to have a cordial discussion with me. It seems that the very fact that I have chosen to believe in Jesus Christ annoys you. It seems to get right up your skin and I wonder why?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually, there is one other alternative I can see. That's the one where you tell all of us your opinions and we all say "You're absolutely right Jakkass, you have now converted me". I am not trying to be antagonistic here, I honestly can't see any other way to carry out the conversation other than point and counter point

Many users disagree with me and do so with common courtesy. I've come to value my discussion with several users on this forum and on others. Most seem to be capable of doing this. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing, I just have problems with people acting in a manner that is inappropriate for the discussion. I'd love to be able to share my beliefs with you in an open manner, where I don't have to have nonsense barked at me by you in a hostile tone every time I happen to post here.

Point and counterpoint would actually be a comfortable way to discuss things, arguably a bit too formal but if you could leave any personal attacks about me firmly at the door it might be a start.

The funny thing is no matter what on earth I do here, I find opposition. I started this thread for the mere purpose of being able to enter into more friendly relations with you and others like you on this forum. You seem incapable of even wanting to do this.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Many users disagree with me and do so with common courtesy. I've come to value my discussion with several users on this forum and on others. Most seem to be capable of doing this. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing, I just have problems with people acting in a manner that is inappropriate for the discussion

Well Jakkass, I consider randomly ignoring people the very definition of "inappropriate for discussion". I'd love a discussion too but you don't seem to want to have one. This whole argument started because I asked you politely to stop ignoring me. I see absolutely nothing contentious in the posts in this thread and in the other that you chose not to respond to. In this thread for example I simply pointed out that your point did not fit with the rules of probability. I did not make a personal attack, I did not say anything antagonistic, I simply said why I disagreed with you

Jakkass wrote: »

Point and counterpoint would actually be a comfortable way to discuss things, arguably a bit too formal but if you could leave any personal attacks about me firmly at the door it might be a start.

In this thread I was perfectly polite to you right up until the last post. We were engaging in a respectable discussion until you did your usual and stopped responding to me. The same in the other thread.

I then politely asked you to respond to me as you agreed and you broke the agreement by getting out of it with an excuse. I then pointed out some more flaws in the points you were making against me and now you've started with the personal attacks.

All I'm seeing here is you can't respond to what I'm saying so you're coming up with excuse after excuse to hide that fact. Ignoring me didn't work, making excuses didn't work and now you've moved to personal attacks. Just respond to the point man


What do other people think? Have I been unfairly antagonistic in this thread or have I simply asked Jakkass to respond to me as he agreed? And was I being antagonistic before he stopped responding to me?

liamw

What is up with this place?

I made this comment:

4. I've seen/witnessed miracles (supernatural events) happen, or I believe that they did. When I weigh up the supernatural explanation vs. the other one, the evidence lies so strongly in favour of the supernatural one, I sitll think it must be true???

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm genuinely interested in why you believe what you do Jakkass, and any other christian. I keep on digging for reasons to understand religious beliefs but I haven't found one decent argument yet.

I'm curious as to how you can go from being agnostic to religious. I just don't get it and you can't seem to explain it. You talk about spiritual experiences, but then say that athiests wouldn't understand anyway so we can't talk about the validity of that.

Next we start talking about indications of an event happening through evidence. Which, I believe is something we can discuss. But Sam and I pointed out blatent flaws in your whole argument and you seem to just ignore them now and whine about how the thread is gone off topic. Is this how every thread ends on these forums???

Let's get to the bottom of the evidence indication piece please. So we can actually conclude on something. Sam you are going to start another thread? Maybe you should do it in the Christianity forum?

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

Let's get to the bottom of the evidence indication piece please. So we can actually conclude on something. Sam you are going to start another thread? Maybe you should do it in the Christianity forum?

It's already been started but I don't know if Jakkass wants to respond to it now:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055559318

Maybe if you ask the question instead

philologos

liamw: Thanks for your post, I'm just about through with this thread. Feel free to PM me. You might want to give me a while to respond.

I never intended to discuss or argue about evidence, it was to try and understand eachother more. You have absolutely no idea how frustrating this is. I actually intended this thread to be a way to improve relations and not to have to deal with the same nonsense as usual, it seems to have failed yet again! It seems there is nothing I can do here without having to face complaints of some form it's quite amazing.

I'd recommend a lock on this thread by this point.

ScumLord

Belief system: Not sure, I want to be all religions.


The main reason most people are Christians is because they where born into a Christian community and it's the community that keeps them that way. It seems religion is somewhat hard wired into us.

I think spirituality (whatever it is) is important to people, people can't help but wonder and need some sort of answer to stop the brain tieing itself in knots trying to work it all out.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You have absolutely no idea how frustrating this is. I actually intended this thread to be a way to improve relations and not to have to deal with the same nonsense as usual, it seems to have failed yet again! It seems there is nothing I can do here without having to face complaints of some form it's quite amazing.

It's frustrating for you and me both mate. you say there is nothing you can do here without having to face complaints but there is one very simple thing you can do: stop ignoring people, easy as that.

you say you want to have a discussion and to understand each other better but how can that happen when you consistently stop responding to people in the middle of a conversation?

Naz_st

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What do other people think? Have I been unfairly antagonistic in this thread or have I simply asked Jakkass to respond to me as he agreed? And was I being antagonistic before he stopped responding to me?

Jakkass: you do tend to ignore a lot of posts, and I can understand why Sam wonders if it is because you can't answer the point or don't like the connotations the question has for your beliefs.

Sam: No one has to answer any post at all, and there's no point demanding that posts are answered. Also, to be fair to Jakkass, he is often on his own, so to speak, in this forum and can't be expected to answer all the posts aimed at him (especially since there's usually so many! )

To both: Take the squabbling offline! As amusing as a public "handbags at dawn" can be, it's not exactly a scintillating and ground-breaking discussion of key issues!

Sam Vimes

Naz_st wrote: »

Sam: No one has to answer any post at all, and there's no point demanding that posts are answered. Also, to be fair to Jakkass, he is often on his own, so to speak, in this forum and can't be expected to answer all the posts aimed at him (especially

Ah but you see Jakkass does have to answer because he explicitly agreed that he would at 14:59 on 06-05-2009 in exchange for me using a "non-antagonistic" and "non-childish" tone.

This is what he agreed to:

If you make a point and someone responds to it, I ask that you do one of the following:

• respond to it saying why you think it is wrong and don't avoid the point with an excuse, like the time you refused to answer whether you thought it was ok to raise a child with racist beliefs with the excuse that I was apparently comparing Christianity to racism, which I was obviously not
• concede the point
• concede that you cannot answer the point, not necessarily conceding that the point is right
• never bring that point up again until you have dealt with the responses

Dades

New thread for Jakkass and Sam Vimes means this poor creature can be put out of it's misery.

Everyone else feel free to exercise your right to not post in it or it will end up like this trainwreck.