|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 21, 2005 15:28:42 GMT
It seems the defecation has impacted the ventilation. Somehow I think this quote is becoming increasingly relevant as the topic progresses...
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 21, 2005 19:55:03 GMT
*Sigh*. You just refuse to pay any attention to anything we say, don't you, Liquidus? Your reflex is that because the rest of us, even Rob these days, are not Christians, we must be evil and ignorant and therefore whatever we say is tainted and does not deserve any attempt on your part to pay attention to or comprehend. Hence you repeat your old folly of demanding that we prove the non-existence of God. Any first-day philosopher could tell you that it is logically impossible to prove a negative, as a non-existent entity, by definition, leaves no evidence with which anything can be proven. (Indeed, in light of the fact that no direct proof of God's existence has ever been uncovered, it can be argued convincingly that you have sufficient proof that he is a fantasy.) The ancient adages, "Do not test your God!" and, "We cannot prove He exists, but nor can you prove that He does not!" have always been ways the Christian Church (and indeed other religious groups) have used to silence opposition and keep people from questioning their word. Science and philosophy have been wise to that for a long time though. I and the others are getting so tired of repeating ourselves and asking you to try a bit harder in your approach to debating that you're genuinely starting to get aggravating. So, in the hope that you might finally grasp what we're trying to say, I encourage you to read this; - thegreatcritic.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=miscell&action=display&thread=1123782126&page=3Preferably the whole thread, but at the very least, read the most recent post I added to it. Perhaps you'll recognise the traits that you yourself resemble.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Sept 22, 2005 12:22:38 GMT
I regret to have to contradict you all slightly, but you can only prove somethings non-existence when something that does exist contradicts it. This, however, applies largely to science, and the only remotely demonstrative example I can think of is:
It is alleged that the accused was in the place of a murder at the time it happened. There is no evidence to contradict this, other than at the same time he was filmed withdrawing money from an ATM. As he was at the ATM at the same time of the murder, he cannot have committed the murder, as it happened in a different place.
Please do not argue with the example as I am not basing any arguments on it, but merely trying to demonstrate.
I should also make it clear that this probably does not apply to superhuman deities.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 22, 2005 13:00:00 GMT
(I know you said not to contradict the example but I don’t see that it is particularly relevant here. Just to clarify, Will, I’m not using this as an attack on you and I am quite aware you weren’t using the argument as a basis to anything. In this scenario I will apply your example to the topic so far)
The thing is that even in the trial scenario you described the burden of proof first rests on the prosecution. They must provide evidence that the defendant WAS at the scene of the murder, unless they do provide such evidence (which they don't in your example) the defence doesn't have to prove their client wasn't at the murder scene. The burden of proof would only change if the prosecution offered PROOF the defendant WAS at the scene and in this case the defence would then have to offer contradictory evidence or lose the case. The defendant cannot be arrested and brought to trial if there is no evidence against him. I am unable to offer conclusive proof that I wasn’t at the scene of most major bombings in my lifetime, but I could only be arrested and put on trial if the was reasonable evidence that I WAS there!
In the case of this dispute, Liq has not offered ANY evidence to prove his case (that Jesus didn’t marry or have children and he was the son of god) other than highly sketchy ‘Jesus didn’t conform’ and ‘you can’t prove god doesn’t exist’, which in a courtroom scenario would be far too sketchy and insubstantial to hold up to much scrutiny, and in any case both points have been contradicted competently several times by Modeski, Naselus and HStorm. I think that the numerous posts in both this and the previous beliefs topic explaining why proving that something doesn’t exist is impossible and can be applied to far more frivolous strands of logic than just god have more than dismissed this pseudo-logic. So unless Liquidus can take Storm’s advice and try harder in his debating, offering us something new there really isn’t any point in him remaining in this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 22, 2005 13:03:57 GMT
That's not proven, it's deduced. You actually CANNOT prove something's non-existance, as philosophers have been telling us since Socrates. Hence the entire point of Rational philosophy; you'll never be able to prove most things, so you have to go through a process of elimination until you come to the only remaining conclusion. You still have no proof of the negative; as it's not possible for something that isn't to leave proof to that effect.
As there is no proof either way on the God issue, such a process of deduction is impossible anyway, leaving the burden of proof upon those who claim God DOES exist. Until such proof is provided, or sufficient proof is available for deduction to take place (i.e. some photos of God, a giant footprint, him actually appearing on nationwide TV and admitting to being guilty of everything that's ever happened ever), then God cannot be used as the basis of an argument.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 22, 2005 18:26:09 GMT
Please do not argue with the example as I am not basing any arguments on it, but merely trying to demonstrate. Not arguing with it, as it's perfectly valid in this context, it's just you're taking the term "prove-a-negative" a little too literally. I'm using the philosophical catchphrase that simply means the paradox of trying to find evidence of an object or entity not being there, rather than the broader sense that can include the evidence that an event did not take place.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 23, 2005 10:13:12 GMT
Yes, don't worry Will, you're not the one on trial here
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Sept 23, 2005 12:09:13 GMT
Just to say, this is f***ing hilarious . I think you're all just slightly over reacting.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 23, 2005 12:26:13 GMT
Uh Huh, you don't actually have a response so you're attempting to dodge the bullet by laughing it off eh? I would have expected better but judging by some of your previous responses I'm not even surprised. Either formulate a response or admit you've got no argument, simple as that... Edit: Funny how History repeats itself, HStorm has already directed you to the thread but after that last post I think this has become relevant once more... Or even.... MEKANIK: Running away from an argument means you've lost it.
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Sept 23, 2005 12:38:39 GMT
lol [Edit By Rob: Violation of 'Keep It Useful' "Don't do single line posts that don't contribute to the topic in any way", official warning]
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 23, 2005 12:54:43 GMT
If all you're going to contribute is inflexible arguments full of logical fallacies followed by 'get out of topic free' and one line nonsense posts when your arguments have been defeated there is little point you participating in the discussions held here. Please either respond sensibly or admit defeat as your delay tactics are getting really tiring.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 23, 2005 17:15:40 GMT
No, Liq, you still haven't quite grasped the concept of debating skills; you won't increase your chances of winning the argument by increasing the number of smilies you use...
And how exactly do you expect us to react? You never pay attention to us, while still expecting us to pay attention to you, and so we end up having to repeat ourselves over and over. If we're exasperated, it's because you're exasperating. You've been banned from this forum before for being disruptive and talking in irrelevances, so we'd have hoped that you might have learned a change of approach on your return.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 23, 2005 18:04:27 GMT
Liq, it has to be said that you've avoided responding to any of the points we've made at all since somewhere around your third post. The only reasonable attempt at an argument you gave us was a weak claim that Jesus wouldn't have been married because he didn't conform. You've not replied to ANYTHING I've said to you since then, instead (incorrectly) accusing Mod of hypocrisy, and then trying to worm your way out of the whole debate through being a pompous, pious bigot.
Now, unless you're capable of creating any argument that exists outside the bible, I suggest you don't engage in one at all. You either end up writing irritating dogma that adds nothing useful to the debate, or simply start spouting scripture and ignoring all responses, slowing everything down. Both of which serve only to irritate other forum users as they stop to explain things over and over.
Now, while I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this and I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to ask, have you even bothered looking for the URL of the websites we've used to reseach this topic? Have you done your own research, perhaps? Or have you, as we all know you have, simply decided on your position from a totally uneducated, one-dimensional perspective based on what you WANT the answer to be, and then chosen to blindly argue with anything we say that might contradict your perfect view of the world?
This is what's wrong with being part of an organised religion, Liquidus. And your beloved Christ would have despised you as a tool, and my feelings toward you are seldom any better. Even Mekanik was better than this.
I've argued religion with some extremely clever people. They've looked at my arguments and looked for the holes, sought the ways around what I say and accepted where the scriptures are probably wrong. And I respect them for that. However, simple blind fiery insistance that the biblical version of events is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is poor form, as it makes no attempt to answer it's critics. It simply refuses to hear, and therefore it is ignorant, arrogant and ultimately stupid. Ooohcarrots was like that, and thats why her arguments rapidly deteriorated into simple namecalling and insistance on personal experience over objective study. Because she HAD no argument, at the bottom of it all; she had no opinion of her own on the matter, and so she simply repeated someone else's endlessly and became frustrated and abusive when it was challenged. You're doing a similar sort of thing; but given how carrots was incapable of defeating us with her howling fury you're choosing to ignore it by pretending none of it's serious, and that it's all just a game. It's not fooling anyone, Liq. You've got no point to make, and it shows.
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Sept 26, 2005 8:54:34 GMT
Liq, it has to be said that you've avoided responding to any of the points we've made at all since somewhere around your third post. The only reasonable attempt at an argument you gave us was a weak claim that Jesus wouldn't have been married because he didn't conform. You've not replied to ANYTHING I've said to you since then, instead (incorrectly) accusing Mod of hypocrisy, and then trying to worm your way out of the whole debate through being a pompous, pious bigot. Now, unless you're capable of creating any argument that exists outside the bible, I suggest you don't engage in one at all. You either end up writing irritating dogma that adds nothing useful to the debate, or simply start spouting scripture and ignoring all responses, slowing everything down. Both of which serve only to irritate other forum users as they stop to explain things over and over. Now, while I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this and I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to ask, have you even bothered looking for the URL of the websites we've used to reseach this topic? Have you done your own research, perhaps? Or have you, as we all know you have, simply decided on your position from a totally uneducated, one-dimensional perspective based on what you WANT the answer to be, and then chosen to blindly argue with anything we say that might contradict your perfect view of the world? This is what's wrong with being part of an organised religion, Liquidus. And your beloved Christ would have despised you as a tool, and my feelings toward you are seldom any better. Even Mekanik was better than this. I've argued religion with some extremely clever people. They've looked at my arguments and looked for the holes, sought the ways around what I say and accepted where the scriptures are probably wrong. And I respect them for that. However, simple blind fiery insistance that the biblical version of events is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is poor form, as it makes no attempt to answer it's critics. It simply refuses to hear, and therefore it is ignorant, arrogant and ultimately stupid. Ooohcarrots was like that, and thats why her arguments rapidly deteriorated into simple namecalling and insistance on personal experience over objective study. Because she HAD no argument, at the bottom of it all; she had no opinion of her own on the matter, and so she simply repeated someone else's endlessly and became frustrated and abusive when it was challenged. You're doing a similar sort of thing; but given how carrots was incapable of defeating us with her howling fury you're choosing to ignore it by pretending none of it's serious, and that it's all just a game. It's not fooling anyone, Liq. You've got no point to make, and it shows. Someone who has obviously never heard of faith. I've argued religion with some extremely clever people. They've looked at my arguments and looked for the holes, sought the ways around what I say and accepted where the scriptures are probably wrong. And I respect them for that. Oh, woopy doo. You respect them because they caved in to you. I was hoping this wouldn't turn into another Atheist vs. Christian debate, but hey, this is TheCritique forum we're talking about. Let's just face the facts: we aren't going to prove anything against one another, simply because we can't prove it either way. Oh and Nas, don't start with the whole "God doesn't exist, it's proven thing" because to be honest, if that was true why aren't we all atheists?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 26, 2005 9:28:19 GMT
Oh Liq, stop being so bloody pompous and childish. "Now, while I'm pretty sure I already know the answer to this and I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to ask, have you even bothered looking for the URL of the websites we've used to research this topic? Have you done your own research, perhaps? Or have you, as we all know you have, simply decided on your position from a totally uneducated, one-dimensional perspective based on what you WANT the answer to be, and then chosen to blindly argue with anything we say that might contradict your perfect view of the world?" I note you've avoided answering any questions put to you and instead dismissed a whole post with a single sentence that doesn't answer anything. Why are you avoiding all the questions put to you? Are you unable to answer them or just refusing because they come from a 'fiendish atheist'? Either way your responses aren’t actually answering our questions, nor rebuking our points. You’re responding to lengthy and in depth arguments with minute indignant sentences that don’t even contain any points and this really isn’t going to win anyone over. "Oh, woopy doo. You respect them because they caved in to you." Naselus' post didn't say anything like that, he said they accepted WHERE the scriptures ARE wrong, not that they caved in completely. The people in his example actually argued back and made a proper effort, you on the other hand just act rude, ignorant and childish whenever the argument goes against you. "Someone who has obviously never heard of faith." Here’s a definition of faith, the one that you’re applying here “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” Funny how ‘faith’ sounds a lot like ‘ignorance’ in this context isn’t it? What you’re basically saying by hiding behind your faith is this, ‘no matter how well you put down my arguments and logical fallacies I won’t concede defeat because I have faith.’ In which case you participating in debate is pretty pointless and a total waste of our time. I think this is exactly the sort of nonsense response we've come to expect from you, wise up. Not only is that statement totally untrue (if Naselus hadn’t heard of faith he wouldn’t have gotten far in religious debate) but it's exactly the sort of unsupported 'pseudo-argument' religious types throw themselves behind when forced to offer any proof. 'You’ve never heard of faith, you don't understand Christianity, you can't prove God doesn't exist so he does.' In the last beliefs thread all of these arguments came up and were disproved and the very fact you're using the same tactics again shows that you haven't learned anything, least of all some debating skills. “If that was true why aren't we all atheists?” Because some people would rather cling to blind faith than accept they are alone in this universe, you don’t need an all-knowing father figure promising you an eternity of paradise to have values, beliefs and morals. “I was hoping this wouldn't turn into another Atheist vs. Christian debate, but hey, this is The Critique forum we're talking about.” No, Liq, it's not the Critique forum that's started this it's you refusing to accept and tolerate the viewpoints of others because they don't fall into line with your own narrow perspectives on religion. This is definitely flame baiting if not an outright flame so I'm considering this your final warning. This sort of rubbish got you banned the first time and if you don't start putting some serious effort into your debating or at least stop being patronising and rude the same is going to happen again. [Edit: Oh, and if you haven't read this thegreatcritic.proboards24.com/index.cgi?board=miscell&action=display&thread=1123782126&page=3 yet I think you should seeing as you have displayed all the traits HStorm has listed under PRO-CHRISTIAN BIGOT.]
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 26, 2005 11:19:05 GMT
Someone who has obviously never heard of faith. Ah. I see that not only are you incapable of reading any of the links we use to support our points, but you also seem to have trouble understanding the posts we reply to you with. Try this instead. Spot the dog. See Spot run. Run, Spot, run. Was that simple enough for your laboured fanatic brain to cope with? Oh, woopy doo. You respect them because they caved in to you. No. I respected them because they were capable of independant thought and debate. I do not respect you, as you are only able to spout scripture and ignore anything which doesn't fit exactly into your half-witted world view. I was hoping this wouldn't turn into another Atheist vs. Christian debate, but hey, this is TheCritique forum we're talking about. Let's just face the facts: we aren't going to prove anything against one another, simply because we can't prove it either way. Oh and Nas, don't start with the whole "God doesn't exist, it's proven thing" because to be honest, if that was true why aren't we all atheists? Firstly, Liq, I never said 'God doesn't exist and it's proven'. I said it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Your failure to even begin to grasp the fundamentals of what I am saying underlines my point here. I'm not saying God doesn't exist, but I AM saying that since you can't prove his existence you can't build an argument based on Him. OK? Secondly, YOU are the one who drags it back to 'Atheist vs Chistians' with your insistance on dragging any opinion you have back to the bible. Try and formulate your own viewpoint for once, Liq. Attempt to think for yourself for five damn minutes, rather that constantly spouting the damn scripture at us and assuming it's an argument. It's not. Thirdly, the reason we aren't going to prove anything is that you have no proof, only blind dumb faith, and that faith prevents you from hearing anything that doesn't exactly meet your pre-formulated concept of reality. You've started at the end and choose to ignore anything which doesn't fit your picture. That's just stupidity. Now, would you like to go back and ACTUALLY COCKING READ all the posts we've made, and perhaps also take a look at the quoted sources, and then engage in an actually debate? Or would you simply like to keep repeating the same narrow message and avoid learning anything which might broaden your understanding of your God, since it comes from my atheist tongue? I learn these things because they interest me, Liquidus. I know a hell of a lot more about your religion that you seem to, but you're terrified to listen to what I've got to say in case it contradicts the writings chosen by a pagan emperor. Which makes you a total hypocrite for claiming I don't understand faith, Christ or anything else, really.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Sept 26, 2005 17:44:25 GMT
Someone who has obviously never heard of faith. It's a classic approach for any bigot who knows he's losing an argument just to say, "You don't know what you're talking about" and then elaborate no further. Oh, woopy doo. You respect them because they caved in to you. No, he respects them because they don't argue with physical reality. He respects them because when the facts are against their point of view, they acknowledge it. He respects them because they acknowledge the very obvious precept that factual evidence is the fundamental basis of truth. In other words, they realise that you can't offer much of an argument without it. I was hoping this wouldn't turn into another Atheist vs. Christian debate By saying "another Atheist vs. Christian debate", you seem to be implying that the slugfest the previous Beliefs thread descended into was an Atheist v Christian debate. Well it wasn't. I was arguing with a lot of what you said in that topic as well, and as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, I am not an atheist. No we can't. In Nas' case, he doesn't have to, as by definition he would have to try to prove-a-negative, which is a logical paradox (for reasons we've given on numerous occasions). Meanwhile, you're admitting you can't prove-a- positive, which means you're admitting you've lost.
|
|
Gamgee
Member of Parliament
Posts: 20
|
Post by Gamgee on Sept 27, 2005 9:54:21 GMT
Liquidus's arguments are appaling. I am allmost tempted to argue in favour of God, to show that there are feasible and logical arguments, despite being a staunch atheist myself.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Sept 27, 2005 9:58:43 GMT
Well I'm pretty sure even the staunchest of atheists could put up a better and more enlightened fight than either Liq or Carrots because they aren't so fixed on the exact wording of the Bible and would be willing to accept where the Bible and the scripture is wrong. Heck even some religious types will accept this. It tends to be the die hards that refuse to even acknowledge any faults or inconsistencies with their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Sept 27, 2005 10:15:22 GMT
It's so frustrating, because most of us spend a long time constructing our arguments, previewing our posts, and answering specific points. A very few people, usually on the opposing side of the argument, are doing the internet equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalaalalal can't hear you".
Liquidus, please read, consider and respond to our posts. You'll notice that we are at pains to be non-judgmental and debate the issues, so I implore you to follow this example. It is far more fulfilling than simply ignoring what's being said.
The internet is full of sites where you can spout nonsense, perhaps you would be more suited to one of them. Please do not construe this as an attempt to oust you; you're more than welcome to stay here as long as you put some thought into your posts.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Sept 27, 2005 11:10:12 GMT
Don't bother, Mod. Liq seems to have considerable trouble understanding the meaning of our posts at all. His last reply shows that, even when he's capable of reading the individual words, the sentences themselves go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over his head.
He even has trouble seeing the fundamental inconsistancy between his opinions of other religions (his scorn toward Islamic fundamentalist philosohpy has been shown several times), and his own, equally fanatic views. Simply remarkable that he's able to take an athiest argument against Islam, and yet unable to understand the exact same argument when applied to Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 24, 2005 16:44:30 GMT
Anyway, now all that's over with.....
Does anyone have any questions about beliefs, religions, or early scripture? Anyone want to know where Christianity's roots actually lie? Any interest in what can be found out about the life, and indeed the death, of Jesus from more than just the church-approved materials?
I know that I may come under fire from our very own Religious Right over this, but I would ask only that they rememeber the words of their wise Saint Augustine, in De Genesi ad Litteram Libri Duodecim. I'm sure you've read it thoroughly, but just in case you've missed that one, it's the bit where he says "Christians shouldn't argue about things they know nothing about. It makes our God look stupid and our bible seem absurd." Or at least, words to that effect.
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Mar 11, 2006 21:06:08 GMT
Ah. I did miss this thread.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 12, 2006 22:48:15 GMT
Ah. I did miss this thread. # Thanks for letting us know, I guess
|
|
|
Post by The Tommunist on Mar 13, 2006 10:02:56 GMT
I'm going to assume that face is one of exasperation, Rob. Don't worry, I won't be posting here.
|
|