Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The others...

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    Jakkass wrote: »
    We know that the Universe was created

    We do? Who is this "we" and how do they know that?
    The Universe was created a finite amount of time ago.

    Well, the "Big Bang" happened a finite amount ago - what "existed" before that is an open question. Big Bang -> Big Crunch -> Big Bang ad nauseum is one possible scenario.
    Therefore the Universe is contingent and not necessary.
    Not necessary for what? :confused:

    Our existence is contingent on the Universe's existence, after that it's just speculation.


  • #103
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Certainly not. One of the big fallacies of the God debate IMO. We and the universe exist in the Natural world and see its laws etc.

    Not as big a fallacy as the "God Exists outside the natural universe and therefore is not subject to its laws" fallacy. The religious "Get out of jail free card" in the cosmological argument.
    So in this natural universe, we canot fathom the universe always existing etc.

    Why not?
    However, knowing that God is the creator of such laws, and indeed the natural universe, I don't have to apply the natural laws to him, for he is, for want of a better term, the inventor.

    How does something exist outside of space and time? What is it made of? How does it interact with space and time if it is immaterial? Cue "Get out of Jail free card #2": God works in mysterious ways.
    Saying that we must apply his own natural laws to him is foolish. So God always being there...

    God always "being" where - you just said he doesn't exist in space or time??
    ...and the universe alway being there are infinately different concepts.

    Only in your head.


  • #104
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Naz_st wrote: »
    So in this natural universe, we canot fathom the universe always existing etc.
    Why not?
    And of course, just because we cannot fathom it, doesn't mean it's not the case. It's also hard to fathom 11 dimensions but the evidence seems to be pointing in that direction


  • #105
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    I think the 'in their shoes' thing was done before. I can't remember what I wrote in it so I just want to say that some Christians believe what they believe partly because it was hammered mercilessly into them in childhood, and partly because in adulthood, they don't want to disappoint their parents. Some feel too guilty even questioning the idea of not 'believing' in it.


  • #106
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Again, OK-Cancel-Apply, you're not getting the idea of the thread.

    No Christian would say it was "hammered mercilessly" into them. I personally don't think that is true in my situation. As for "mercilessly" even if parents taught their child Christianity it would be out of mercy quite frankly preventing them from eternal damnation.

    As for faith and parents. You have to let go and live for yourself eventually. You have to form your own religious views.


  • #107
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Tell me Jakkass, what is the difference between the following story and yours? Why is it that mine is clearly ridiculous and yours can be seen as evidence for christianity:

    There's a nuclear war and New York is buried. 1000 years from now the city is unearthed and the archaeologists stand there open mouthed and declare: "Wow! That means King Kong was most likely real!!"

    If that were the only indication for Christianity. Perhaps your point would have merit, infact it would have a lot of merit. However it is the amount of indication that causes me to think that it is indeed true.


  • #108
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If that were the only indication for Christianity. Perhaps your point would have merit, infact it would have a lot of merit. However it is the amount of indication that causes me to think that it is indeed true.

    That sounds to me like the old phrase: "anecdote + anecdote + anecdote=fact".

    Even if you had 1000 indications, all of equal validity as the Sodom one, the likelihood would only increase from 0.001% to 0.00100000000000000005%. It is an incredibly weak argument no matter what way you look at it. Can you imagine someone saying in a court of law:

    "We don't have proof that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK from the book depository but the book depository definitely exists so I want to submit that as evidence by indication"


  • #109
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    How did you calculate that percent? See why are you expecting your norms to be applicable to me? This is what I find awkward about our discussions. We are different people Sam please remember that.

    I never said it equalled fact so can I conclude that is a strawman? I like you base my beliefs upon probability. It is more likely to me that God exists rather than not.


  • #110
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ... I like you base my beliefs upon probability. It is more likely to me that God exists rather than not.

    Based on probability?


  • #111
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How did you calculate that percent? See why are you expecting your norms to be applicable to me? This is what I find awkward about our discussions. We are different people Sam please remember that.

    I calculated that percentage based on the fact that it is incredibly obvious to anyone who does not have a bias towards wanting something to be true. And you would apply roughly the same percentage to any story that did not support your beliefs.

    You said:
    Jakkass wrote:
    If that were the only indication for Christianity. Perhaps your point would have merit, infact it would have a lot of merit
    So you acknowledge that this event alone would be very weak. I placed the rough figure of 0.00000000000000000000005% on the probability. You may disagree with the exact figure but you acknowledge that it is low enough to be comparable to the King Kong story, which is obviously ridiculous

    If you think that the existence of other indications somehow makes the strength of this indication any higher then you are showing a lack of understanding of probability. Two independent events cannot affect each other's probability. It's like saying that if you throw a 6 on one dice it makes it more likely than you'll throw a 6 on another one. The probability of Sodom existing indicating god's existence remains exactly the same regardless of how many other indications there may be, ie extremely and negligibly low. It is always comparable to the King Kong story and never makes any more sense.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I never said it equalled fact so can I conclude that is a strawman? I like you base my beliefs upon probability. It is more likely to me that God exists rather than not.
    I said that it reminded me of the phrase because the basic logic is the same, not that you said it was a fact. The phrase just goes slightly further than you did.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That sounds to me like the old phrase: "anecdote + anecdote + anecdote=fact".

    Even if you had 1000 indications, all of equal validity as the Sodom one, the likelihood would only increase from 0.001% to 0.00100000000000000005%. It is an incredibly weak argument no matter what way you look at it. Can you imagine someone saying in a court of law:

    "We don't have proof that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK from the book depository but the book depository definitely exists so I want to submit that as evidence by indication"

    I'd actually approach the weakness of the argument from a different perspective. Let's take my spire example again. What we are trying to prove here is that the guy flew around.

    Jakkass, you say your argument becomes stronger with more indications. Fine, let's say I have the existence of the spire, the existence of the ground he landed on, the existence of his picture just before he jumped, a picture just after he lands. Unfortunately I have no evidence or proof to indicate that he actually flew, but hey it probably happened given all the other indications right?!


  • #113
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    liamw wrote: »
    I'd actually approach the weakness of the argument from a different perspective. Let's take my spire example again. What we are trying to prove here is that the guy flew around.

    Jakkass, you say your argument becomes stronger with more indications. Fine, let's say I have the existence of the spire, the existence of the ground he landed on, the existence of his picture just before he jumped, a picture just after he lands. Unfortunately I have no evidence or proof to indicate that he actually flew, but hey it probably happened given all the other indications right?!

    Don't forget that you have the existence of the guy himself, the existence of O'Connell street, the existence of guys in general, the existence of animals that are capable of flying, etc etc etc. We might even have a book that says that 500 people saw him fly (we don't have the 500 people to give testimony though, just a claim from one source that 500 people saw it, the guy who wrote it is dead and the source is the same one where the before and after pictures came from).

    The two tiny unimportant indications that we are missing is any indication whatsoever that it is in any way possible for a man to fly and any direct evidence that the claimed event actually happened. But that doesn't matter


  • #114
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Btw, people might well be wondering why I am now responding to Jakkass having said I put him on ignore last week. Well we trashed it out in pm's and I have agreed to stop being antagonistic towards him as long as he agrees to stop selectively ignoring people responding to him and then making the same points later on to which he had previously not responded.

    So it's all good :)


  • #115
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Jakkass wrote: »
    JC 2K3: I'm not interested in researching other religions? How do you know that?

    I have material from Hare Krishnas, I've read sections of the Qur'an (which I own) and other Islamic material, I also have two copies of the book of Mormon, one thick and one thin I have yet to take a look at these.

    I've also read a good bit of the God Delusion, and I may get Hitchen's God is Not Great and other books when I can.

    As I say I don't think you really knew how much I actually do consider other viewpoints, it was a bit of a rash judgement though don't you think? :)
    I think you consider how Christianity is superior or more correct than any alternative viewpoint you read about, as opposed to actually considering the other viewpoints.

    Ok, I don't know you that well. I am jumping to possibly unfair judgment. But it's what I've sensed strongly from you in many threads.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for science, unfortunately it was butchered for me in school. I didn't find my teacher to be very interesting and maybe that finished me with it. I would be interested in studying it personally but I don't see how this would lead me to atheism necessarily.
    Wouldn't lead you to believe in atheism directly, but I'm of the opinion that some grounding in science is very important for anyone wishing to explore the question of life, the universe and everything.


  • #116
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    JC 2K3: I argue that there are similarities between Christianity and other religions. If Christianity is the truth and if there are similarities in other religions. Therefore it is safe to say that other religions contain elements of the truth. That's pretty much logical I would have thought. I consider these views, I personally believe mine to be true yes, but this doesn't stop me learning about other people.

    On science:
    I'm willing to let you recommend me any good books about evolutionary biology, physics, and so on and when I get the time I will read them. I don't have an aversion to it, infact it's something I feel I am lacking in when I am defending my faith. Infact please if any of you have any material I should read on this please PM me, preferably without a bias to atheism.


  • #117
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass, I have given you ample time to respond to my posts and you have been responding to other posts so I can deduce that you have had time to get around to it and have chosen not to.

    You have not responded to this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60141836&postcount=111

    or this post from the "Gripes with your own" thread:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60141655&postcount=101

    As per our agreement, I will now assume that you accept both points and I expect that from now on
    • You will not claim that the existence of Sodom indicates the existence of God or any related argument. This includes removing numbers 6 and 7 on your "7 Reasons Why I Believe In Christianity"
    • You will not imply that morality requires religion in any way because you now accept that it exists independently of religion

    If you do not accept both points, I ask that you respond explaining the flaws in my reasoning


  • #118
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes: I don't want to get into yet another argument about evidence here, infact other users advised me not to a few pages ago, and I think it's fair that I keep to that. It would be a huge tangent from the true intention of the thread to do this.

    In addition, I won't be removing anything from my 7 reasons. I consider these to remain valid. These are indications that the Biblical text retains validity on certain issues, I never intended it to be a fully conclusive 100% note that God exists or that the Bible is 100% valid, it's merely an indication towards that. As such I won't be removing it or any of my views as this was not a part of the agreement.

    Also I never said that morality requires religion. I do however argue that true and valid morals come from God. I will be holding to this belief as a Christian. Secondly, I do agree that humans have a natural sense of right and wrong, hence why Paul says that the Gentile can follow the law without having ever heard it and so be justified morally. (Read Romans chapter 2). This is my view and I will not be retracting it unless there is a seriously good refutation to it.

    Listen and listen good, just because you do not accept something does not mean that I cannot also accept something. I won't be pressured into retracting any opinion of mine publically. That was never a part of the agreement we came to.

    This discussion was never intended to be about evidence, it was never intended to be about "winning" an argument. I believe that discussion is about more than just "winning" or "losing". I asked you to reconsider your understanding behind discussion. I won't be getting into a "winning" or "losing" argument with anyone on this forum. That's not my intention. My intention is to shed light on my understanding of Christianity, that's the best I can do.

    Would you mind doing what the OP asks I'd be interested in your thoughts on it as opposed to tangents.


  • #119
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    You were prepared to get into yet another argument up to a certain point, imo the point that you couldn't think of anything to say as usual. Part of our agreement was that you wouldn't avoid questions with excuses which is what you've just done.

    When I deliberately didn't respond to part of your pm you took that as me accepting the point but I can't do the same with yourself. You just stop responding randomly without conceding the point or defending your case which has always been the problem. You deny this but it's what you've just done

    So unless someone here has a major objection to you explaining the flaw in my logic, I'd ask you to either go ahead and do that or concede the point and remove those two ridiculously weak arguments from your 7 reasons


  • #120
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    As for the OP, everyone knows why people think they believe in religion. They tell us all the time

    Examples would be:
    The universe can't have come from nothing

    So many people can't be wrong

    The historicity of the bible

    It gives them comfort

    There must be a god

    Social reasons, they want to be accepted and have a sense of community

    Of course each of those arguments has it's own flaws, I don't think any of them indicate the existence of god but I know other people do


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • #122
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #123
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #124
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭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


  • #125
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #126
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #128
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭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? :)


  • #129
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #130
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #131
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #133
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭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!


  • #134
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #135
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement