NationStates Jolt Archive

I must say Lourdes Works.

Go and Hang around there long enough and You'll see a Miracle.

Have any limbs grown back? The statistics on Lourdes 'miracle' cures are damning: the percentage of 'cures' is actually less that the expected percentage of remissions would be if everyone stayed at home...

Some guy found Noah's Ark on a Mountain in Turkey or some such place.

That's my proof.

Source? I know of several people and groups who've claimed to have found the Ark over the years and no claims have ever been substantiated.

Even if it was true (which it isn't), what would it prove? Only that there's a boat on a mountain in Turkey. It wouldn't prove anything else in the Torah, let alone the rest of the Tanach or the New Testament.

I believed in gods before you said that and it has made no difference to me.

Then there's the fact that most historians have conceeded that Jesus existed.

So what? Jesus of Nazereth wasn't the only preacher of doom in Judaea at the time. Hell, he wasn't even the only preacher of doom called Jesus: we know of at least one other Jesus who was whipped by the Roman governer and preached the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Life of Brian is surprisingly accurate in this respect. :p

It'd be an interesting conundrum for the Creationists, as they insist that radio-isotope dating is flawed. :D

yeah it would.

ive seen a few pictures of the "boat" on ararat. they remind me of the face on the surface of mars. only wishful thinking lets you believe that thats a boat. it might be wood; it might be an outcropping of rock. no way to tell.

if there IS some wood up there that fits the dimensions of the ark it may well have been put there by some true believer in the last 1000 years. not unlike the way pieces of the true cross or the bones of st james have shown up in that time.

and i do wish that jolt could get its server's clocks set to within one minute of each other. im tired of having my posts lost far upwind of the post i quoted.

unless they find a boat AND do tests on it to make sure its at least 5000 years old (i guess it would be older but the story details arent older than that) i would assume that whatever they found there has a more recent or natural explanation.

It'd be an interesting conundrum for the Creationists, as they insist that radio-isotope dating is flawed. :D

I'm sorry, I just have to come back to this, because its the first thing on this thread that I find scary.


"You can't choose a faith", I'll buy that as a premise, I'll take it as true for sake of argument.

But to join it with "not having it would make you go to hell"? (I'm not saying you really believe this, because you stated it as an assumption, perhaps intended merely as an example of a non-placebo benefit of religion).

I find the intersection of these two ideas to be terrifying. That you can't choose a faith, but you can be tortured forever as a result of not having it?

If you can't choose it, it becomes some property or aspect that is outside your control, a priori, and to be punished (in the most superlative and profound sense of the term) for such a thing...

Exactly. It's exactly why such carrot and stick nonsense it's absurd and it's exactly why you have so many angry people within faiths. Because they can't choose to have faith and they don't. That's painting all people of faith together is so silly.

Well... I think the unconscious leap might only apply to some people. It might not be a blanket restriction. In Jocabia's case, it seems, he assessed the reasons rationally, but subconsciously. The dream state is powerful and has a lot of computing power. But for those not so spiritually wired that they can believe in their sleep, I feel there has to be a way to faith that doesn't require turning off parts of your brain.

First, the reason I didn't bother with you is that I don't believe you're at all genuine. It's funny because J is generally totally full of shit, but I do believe what he expresses is genuine once you see through the kidding around on the top. In a sense, it's a very sincere way of interacting. People who've seen me around long enough know that I'm willing to answer just about anything if I think you're asking genuinely.

I'm not sure what's so difficult about this, but I'll try again. I assessed data regarding my faith for a lifetime. I say I didn't consciously choose, because it's not like one day I suddenly just said, okay, today I'll have faith. It was a long slow process where I suddenly realized I believed. It happens much the same way when people lose faith. Rational inconsistencies arise and they cannot rectify them and it chips away at their ability to believe. You do realize that you're away right now and all kinds of things you're doing aren't conscious choices? Suggesting your choices are conscious or dreaming is frankly pretty naive.

I would hope so, because if you can't choose a faith, the mandate of various religions that their followers evangelize would seem wasted.

I get the feeling I'm not really understanding J's position, though. I'll ask him if he's around another time.

Well, you hit pretty hard on why I didn't want to give such an example. Because I gave you an example to simply show that non-psychosomatic benefits can exist assuming a faith were true. I wasn't attempting to assess the value of that example if it were true.

Yes, I think it's rather silly to suggest that the concept of faith is so extremely easy and so extremely difficult in many, many ways, and to tie such important consequences to it.

As for not choosing, consider it rather like wisdom. You can't choose to gain wisdom, but you can open yourself to experiences that will bring you wisdom. Faith is rather like that. It's simply the resutl of a true quest for answers where you don't automatically exclude some.

For clearer examples, look at most people who lose faith. Often times it's a result of not being able to rectifiy certain information with their faith which generally only happens if you cannot accept certain answers. Answers like, everyone wins. Good, bad, child molestors and rapists, we all get the same afterlife (just another example). For some people, that idea is so unpalettable that it cannot be considered. For them they are supposed to be rewarded while others are punished. That ideological shortcoming can be a huge factor in losing faith. At least, it's what I've seen.

(I want to add a caveat. My beliefs often come across to certain people as if I'm saying my having faith means I'm "better" than them. By the nature of belief, I think I'm right. Of course. However, I think there is at least some luck in every form of wisdom of which I think faith is a type. That you do or do not have faith is not a value judgement necessarily.)

i dont see it.

a "leap of faith" is to believe in the face of there being completely no proof, in the face of doubt, in the face of certain things making no sense.

what is the leap in denying that there is anything to leap to? god and faith is not the default that one must leap away from to believe something else. steadfastly denying even the possibility is more of a "gluing your feet to the ground" than leaping to anything.

Ash, it's a classic fallacy. It's argument from ignorance. You cannot declare anything true OR anything false without evidence. Otherwise it's simply unknown. To say you don't believe there's a god is one thing. To say you believe there isn't is a leap of faith, because by it's nature you don't have evidence to prove it.

Leaps of faith aren't as bad as you make them out to be. Technically, saying that invisible fairies don't exist requires a leap of faith.

You CAN say a particularly well-defined concept is false, however. If you say there are no unicorns (using the classic definition of a unicorn) then you actually do have evidence. Because unless one changes the concept of unicorn to make it impossible for them to leave behind evidence, the fact we've not found any is good evidence. To conclude something doesn't exist you must be able to say specifically what evidence exists and have no reasonable explanation for not finding it.

It's much easier to understand the man-made concepts of spirituality and religion if you view them not as abstract creations out of reality, but instead as products of the material relations and conditions of the time. Thus religion in the ancient times and feudal times is much different to religion in modernity. Maybe when humanity was dying of common diseases, with an atrocious lifespan, with all that religion was the only consoling thing.

I can't believe you took me that seriously. OK, +5 points to the first person who can identify where I got this from...


Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true, rather than what the evidence shows to be likely or possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring universe that will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, we will pin all of our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore, he must exist.

Ash, it's a classic fallacy. It's argument from ignorance. You cannot declare anything true OR anything false without evidence. Otherwise it's simply unknown. To say you don't believe there's a god is one thing. To say you believe there isn't is a leap of faith, because by it's nature you don't have evidence to prove it.

Leaps of faith aren't as bad as you make them out to be. Technically, saying that invisible fairies don't exist requires a leap of faith.

You CAN say a particularly well-defined concept is false, however. If you say there are no unicorns (using the classic definition of a unicorn) then you actually do have evidence. Because unless one changes the concept of unicorn to make it impossible for them to leave behind evidence, the fact we've not found any is good evidence. To conclude something doesn't exist you must be able to say specifically what evidence exists and have no reasonable explanation for not finding it.


im just quibbling with the term "leap of faith".

it doesnt apply to everyone with faith and it really doesnt apply to most people without faith.

i dont have a problem with your discussion. the only problem i have is defining not believing in something with no proof as a leap.

the only leap is to believe or disbelieve something in the face of actual evidence, not in the face of a lack of evidence.

im just quibbling with the term "leap of faith".

it doesnt apply to everyone with faith and it really doesnt apply to most people without faith.

i dont have a problem with your discussion. the only problem i have is defining not believing in something with no proof as a leap.

the only leap is to believe or disbelieve something in the face of actual evidence, not in the face of a lack of evidence.

No. As I keep saying repeatedly, not believing is not the same as believing something is false.

It's a leap to believe something in the face of no evidence, by definition. Leap of faith just means believing something without evidence.

Believing something is false without evidence requires a leap of faith. Not believing is just not believing. It's really no conclusion, and thus can't be a leap of faith.

It’s a leap to believe something in the face of no evidence, by definition. Leap of faith just means believing something without evidence.
Right, it doesn’t mean ’not believing something in the face of no evidence’.

It’s not a ‘leap of faith’ to not believe in ghosts, witches, unicorns, dragons, or any other creature with no evidence for their existence.

God doesn't exist.

/thread

Right, it doesn’t mean ’not believing something in the face of no evidence’.

It’s not a ‘leap of faith’ to not believe in ghosts, witches, unicorns, dragons, or any other creature with no evidence for their existence.

Precisely. Not believing when there is no evidence is the only way not to make a leap of faith. I think that's pretty clear.

Proof plz
God is single, but also infinite.

1/infinity = 0, but God / God = 1, so 0 = 1.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Lawl!

God doesn't exist.

/thread

Proof plz

kthxbye

Jocabia: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Gartref: Well, I was told outside that...

Jocabia: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

Gartref: What?

Jocabia: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

Gartref: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

Jocabia: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

Gartref: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

Jocabia: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

Gartref: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.

Jocabia: Not at all.

Gartref: Thank You.

Jocabia: Stupid git!!

:D

It would be more accurate if there was a third party and I was being abusive and you were being the one who is just being contrary and disingenuous like the guy in the sketch who considers that an argument. It's actually quite accurate that you used that sketch because the guy who comes next is actually quite similar to the way you're arguing.

First, the reason I didn't bother with you is that I don't believe you're at all genuine. It's funny because J is generally totally full of shit, but I do believe what he expresses is genuine once you see through the kidding around on the top. In a sense, it's a very sincere way of interacting. People who've seen me around long enough know that I'm willing to answer just about anything if I think you're asking genuinely.

I'm not sure what's so difficult about this, but I'll try again. I assessed data regarding my faith for a lifetime. I say I didn't consciously choose, because it's not like one day I suddenly just said, okay, today I'll have faith. It was a long slow process where I suddenly realized I believed. It happens much the same way when people lose faith. Rational inconsistencies arise and they cannot rectify them and it chips away at their ability to believe. You do realize that you're away right now and all kinds of things you're doing aren't conscious choices? Suggesting your choices are conscious or dreaming is frankly pretty naive.


Jocabia: WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Gartref: Well, I was told outside that...

Jocabia: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!

Gartref: What?

Jocabia: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!

Gartref: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

Jocabia: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.

Gartref: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.

Jocabia: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

Gartref: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.

Jocabia: Not at all.

Gartref: Thank You.

Jocabia: Stupid git!!

:D

If God doesn't exist then explain all the Healing places.

It would be more accurate if there was a third party and I was being abusive and you were being the one who is just being contrary and disingenuous.

How can I argue with you if I don't take a contrary position? ;)

How can I argue with you if I don't take a contrary position? ;)

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary even when you recognize what you're saying is wrong is disingenuous. Comparing it to that MP skit really hits the nail on why you're having a difficult time getting any substance out of me and J isn't.

If God doesn't exist then explain all the Healing places.

what do healing places have to do with god?

and what makes you think that "healing places" work?

Having a dog named Buttons doesn't give you the right to kill your neighbors because Buttons told you to. *nod*

Yeah. Buttons has to be your neighbor's dog. Also Buttons has to be named "Sam".

Being contrary for the sake of being contrary even when you recognize what you're saying is wrong is disingenuous. Comparing it to that MP skit really hits the nail on why you're having a difficult time getting any substance out of me and J isn't.

Or there's a genuine lack of substance.

Or there's a genuine lack of substance.

Believe what you like. I doubt you're going to have a very easy time convincing anyone of that. But feel free to try.

With just a tiny bit of effort you'd find the level of detail I've given on my faith and how I arrived at it is unlikely to surpassed by any current posters. Religion has occupied about half of my posts. But, like I siad, feel free to run with dog and see if it hunts.

Hurray!!!!!!! :D

Thank you.

If God doesn’t exist then explain all the Healing places.
Show us any non-anecdotal proof that ‘healing places’ such as Lourdes do any good to one’s health.

I don't know if you're replying to anyone in particular, but if you are then it helps to quote their post by clicking the 'quote' button, rather than the 'reply' button.

I've already pointed out that:
1. Lourdes has an abysmal healing rate, lower than would be expected from a random sample if everyone stayed home instead.
2. All 'cures' are things which could get better by themselves; there's never an indisputably miraculous cure like an arm or a leg growing back.

Prove the existence of 'Healing places' and then we'll explain them: it seems rather futile of us to do so until you've shown they exist...

are you suggesting that its better to NOT go to lourdes if you want a spontaneous healing?

[mathematical pedant mode]Actually 1/infinity =/= 0. 1/x tends to zero as x tends to infinity, but if 1/infinity=0 then 1=(0*infinity) --> 1=0.[/mathematical pedant mode]

Yeah, I noticed that too. He basically said 1 = 0 to start and then end up with 1=0.

If God doesn't exist then explain all the Healing places.

I don't know if you're replying to anyone in particular, but if you are then it helps to quote their post by clicking the 'quote' button, rather than the 'reply' button.

I've already pointed out that:
1. Lourdes has an abysmal healing rate, lower than would be expected from a random sample if everyone stayed home instead.
2. All 'cures' are things which could get better by themselves; there's never an indisputably miraculous cure like an arm or a leg growing back.

Prove the existence of 'Healing places' and then we'll explain them: it seems rather futile of us to do so until you've shown they exist...

Having a dog named Buttons doesn't give you the right to kill your neighbors because Buttons told you to. *nod*

It doesn't?

*runs to hide bloodstained knife*

God is single, but also infinite.

1/infinity = 0, but God / God = 1, so 0 = 1.

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Lawl!

[mathematical pedant mode]Actually 1/infinity =/= 0. 1/x tends to zero as x tends to infinity, but if 1/infinity=0 then 1=(0*infinity) --> 1=0.[/mathematical pedant mode]

[mathematical pedant mode]Actually 1/infinity =/= 0. 1/x tends to zero as x tends to infinity, but if 1/infinity=0 then 1=(0*infinity) --> 1=0.[/mathematical pedant mode]
Damn. I guess God does exist after all then.

Believe what you like. I doubt you're going to have a very easy time convincing anyone of that. But feel free to try.

With just a tiny bit of effort you'd find the level of detail I've given on my faith and how I arrived at it is unlikely to surpassed by any current posts. Religion has occupied about half of my posts. But, like I siad, feel free to run with dog and see if it hunts.

What they've been shown quite clearly is that when you don't have an answer, you substitute derision for argument. It's your standard practice.

Your derision is not just a debating tool but has another effect you relish. You love to get close to the line of outright flaming, but try to never cross it. This way you get to goad your opponent into making an actionable remark.

You do this, because even more than winning a debate at any cost, you absolutely love reporting people in moderation. You've actually admitted this in an outside forum and were quite proud of it. You're a self-admitted passive aggressive tattle-tale. And you love it.

So... don't talk to me about being genuine. You try to come off as all thoughtful, but you just want to deride people, score points and then get them in trouble.

are you suggesting that its better to NOT go to lourdes if you want a spontaneous healing?

Yep. To be honest, if you're already sick or old and frail it's probably not a good idea to hang out with a large crowd of people with infectious diseases, especially if you plan to drink from the same spring as them. ;)

The whole idea is rather dubious from a theological point of view anyway: even ignoring the fact that having sites for miraculous healing would discriminate in favour of those with the money and leisure to travel to them (a group which Jesus wasn't notably sympathetic towards...), one of the key themes in the Pauline Epistles, and to a lesser extent in the Gospels, is the rejection of centralised divine residence in one earthly location (i.e. the temple in Jerusalem) and an emphasis on the bodies and souls of believers being the residence of the Holy Spirit. The idea of Christian Holy Sites sounds rather blasphemous to me.

Damn. I guess God does exist after all then.

"Religion: now with added math."

Yeah, I noticed that too. He basically said 1 = 0 to start and then end up with 1=0.

It's hard to dispute the reasoning. :p

Yep. To be honest, if you're already sick or old and frail it's probably not a good idea to hang out with a large crowd of people with infectious diseases, especially if you plan to drink from the same spring as them. ;)

The whole idea is rather dubious from a theological point of view anyway: even ignoring the fact that having sites for miraculous healing would discriminate in favour of those with the money and leisure to travel to them (a group which Jesus wasn't notably sympathetic towards...), one of the key themes in the Pauline Epistles, and to a lesser extent in the Gospels, is the rejection of centralised divine residence in one earthly location (i.e. the temple in Jerusalem) and an emphasis on the bodies and souls of believers being the residence of the Holy Spirit. The idea of Christian Holy Sites sounds rather blasphemous to me.

yeah i see what you mean but blasphemous or not it seems to be very human to believe in healing sites.

What they've been shown quite clearly is that when you don't have an answer, you substitute derision for argument. It's your standard practice.

Interesting. Then why did I answer J? Oops.

See, I deride poor argumentation. It deserves it. Take offense all you like, but I'm going to keep pointing out your argument sucks as long as it sucks. I've been absolutely explicit in how it sucks, why it sucks and what you'd need to do to fix it.


Your derision is not just a debating tool but has another effect you relish. You love to get close to the line of outright flaming, but try to never cross it. This way you get to goad your opponent into making an actionable remark.

Uh-huh. You gonna hinge your entire contribution in this thread on stuff you entirely made up? I don't want you to do anything actionable. I want you to make a decent argument. It's much more interesting.


You do this, because even more than winning a debate at any cost, you absolutely love reporting people in moderation. You've actually admitted this in an outside forum and were quite proud of it. You're a self-admitted passive aggressive tattle-tale. And you love it.

So... don't talk to me about being genuine. You try to come off as all thoughtful, but you just want to deride people, score points and then get them in trouble.

Yes, yes, it's all true. You've nailed me. I forced you to make poor arguments, change what I said into something different, use gross generalizations and be obtuse. It's all part of my big trick to get you banned. Cuz, you know, that would be, oh, so interesting. There are some people that I would like to see banned because I believe they cannot operate within the site rules. Most people I want to see corrected because I like the site rules.

First, I've got no substance. But see, when I demonstrate that your first made-up theory is absolutely contrary to the evidence, you change to an even better made-up theory. How about you try this? Focus on improving your argument or forcing me to improve mine. You're not going to do so with weak fallacies and attempts to reform my arguments into something meaning the opposite.

I'll give you examples of the incredibly weak arguments you've made. Go ahead, just try to salvage them

The first time you MADE UP my argument -
No. Whether it is true or false makes no difference. Most often, the reasons given for a belief are the benefits gained through believing. If your reasons for believing don't fall into this catagory, then it doesn't apply to you.

But I bet they do. These inherent values you talk about - what are they? Are they beneficial to you any way? Do they make you sleep better at night? Do they give you any comfort?

You start out telling me what I believe. Like I said, if you're looking to have a real discussion you might have waited till more than a post in to tell me what I believe.

But at least you're consistent.
Meanwhile, I didn't start believing and I don't keep believing for the reasons you state. Those are just advantages of my faith. Then again, I'm comforted by my knowledge of evolution and gravity, actually. It's not why I believe in them either. How comforting something is has little to do with how much or little emperical evidence it has. I find my beliefs comforting because I believe they're right, and because I'm comfortable continuing to examine them, not the other way around (believing they're right because they're comforting).

That's how I wrote it. Note that I reference both my faith and my belief in gravity and evolution while mentioning that I find things I believe to be true comforting regardless of the level of emperical evidence supporting them (because evolution has a lot and my faith requires a leap of faith.)

Here's how you quoted it though.

It's not why I believe in them either. How comforting something is has little to do with how much or little emperical evidence it has. I find my beliefs comforting because I believe they're right, and because I'm comfortable continuing to examine them, not the other way around (believing they're right because they're comforting).

So round & round we go. Are you now saying your belief is based on "emperical evidence" ???

Notice the part you cut from my post. All the bits about the things that have emperical evidence. So now it appears I'm apply emperical evidence to my faith rather than to gravity and evolution. What you removed - "Then again, I'm comforted by my knowledge of evolution and gravity, actually. It's not why I believe in them either." Changes the entire meaning. Then you use a misquote of me to support the assumption I'm claiming my faith has emperical evidence. How could anyone call you disingenuous?

Shall I keep going? Oh why not?



Then there is the various forms of hyperbole and prejudice you offer up on top of assuming what I beleive because I have faith.

Religion fulfills so many psychological needs!

It can make sense of a profoundly complex universe.

It can calm the fear of death.

It can make you feel special or safe or loved.

It can satisfy your needs of justice or revenge.

It can make you money or get you laid.

It can give you instant authority without earning it.

It's pretty much the most useful thing since fire.

Are you intentionally missing the point? It doesn't matter one whit whether the thing you believe in is true or not. The benefits are derived from your act of believing. In that way, the placebo is a perfect analogy. In your case, you can counter this by claiming that your beliefs don't fall in this catagory - which is exactly what you do here:



I would challenge you to actually provide an example of the inherent values of your faith that are not "just those things" that provide you a benefit. Merely re-questioning my understanding of the word placebo is a sham of an argument and you know it. ;) Your penecillin argument only makes sense if the values you espouse don't emenate from the act of believing.

Note that in both of the bolds, you assume, once explicitly and once implicitly, that there can be no additional benefits. This again is an assumption without evidence. Incidentally, you admit in this post exactly what I was saying was wrong with your analogy. It assumes psychosomatic effects are the only effects of your generalized religion and in doing so it MUST assume the religion is false since so many religion have benefits that are neither worldly nore psychosomatic.

Then I guess I should buy every quack cure-all advertised on TV. Because I just can't know if they work or not. If I assume they're probably snake-oil, well that's a pretty big leap of faith, I guess.

In response to my suggestion that your claiim religion is a placebo has an implicit assumption. Now you're comparing religion to snake oil. And suggesting that in asking that you not assume it's false, that I'm saying you must assume it's true, even after explaining repeatedly how there are more options that assume false and assume true.

When I say that believing wasn't a conscious decision, you intentionally conflate it with "leap of faith".
This contradicts much of what you said before and pretty much the entire point of the discussion. You are now claiming that you never made the leap of faith. That a leap was never needed. That you never made a conscious decision to believe.

This whole discussion started when you said my leap in not believing was the same as yours in believing. Now you claim no leap was necessary for either of us. Well I guess that's one way to end an argument. Completely drop the initial bone of contention. :D

Keep in mind your FIRST post in reply to me explicitly differentiates that a leap of faith CAN be conscious by feeling the need to add that adjective.

I didn't say you said it. I said you assumed it.

In other words, you made it up. You can't evidence that assumption and by fact I can actually evidence that I'm making the opposite assumption.

And of course, then you post a bunch of quotes as if they represent a conversation, but you post them out of order. And you use them as evidence of my assumption. Again, how on earth could anyone find this disingenuous?

And just a bit more of your silly rhetoric.

I've never heard of an involuntary leap. Were you sleep-leaping at the time?

How is an unconscious leap even possible? I suppose you could fall or slip, I suppose you could be pushed even. But leap unconsciously? If we are that far apart on semantics we'd best just end this now lest we need define every word.

Now leap of faith references an actual physical leap? You really want to pretend as if that's a genuine argument?

People make a conscious leap of faith to believe because of reasons.

Oh, hey, look you qualified your use of "leap of faith" with "conscious". A necessary qualifier. But, hey, you did come with that completely lucid argument that leaps are physical and thus cannot be anything other than conscious. That totally counters my claim that you felt the need to qualify, right? If you're not laughing yet, you should be.

So have we demonstrated exactly why I might prefer to spend my efforts on the genuine and sensible questions of another poster rather than waste my time giving you information you're not actually going to reasonably incorporate into our discourse? You need more examples?

And one last bit on exactly how disingenuous you're being.

What they've been shown quite clearly is that when you don't have an answer, you substitute derision for argument.

So I don't have an answer.

What the hell? Jocabia gave you an intrinsic value and you only asked once? I've been begging him all night and he's been denying me as unworthy to hear them. God Damn him! :p

Yet a few pages earilier that I DO have an answer, I just wasn't interested in taking your bait.

Your entire premise suddenly becomes that my position towards you is because "you've painted me into a corner" or "I don't have an answer" or I have a "genuine lack of substance", yet you point out that I've clearly been "denying you as unworthy."

You admitted I have a specific problem with you and your style and then claim that my problem is because I don't have an answer, yet demonstrate I've answered the same question to someone else in the same thread. You can go on all you like about how I don't have an substance, but you're gonna be running with that dog a long time and it's not gonna hunt.

So now make some more weak arguments and get annoyed at me when I point out that they're weak and that you're engaging in fallacies and disingenuous assumptions. I'm sure that will help you.

It's funny because J is generally totally full of shit, but I do believe what he expresses is genuine once you see through the kidding around on the top.

Is "J" me?

Why does everybody think I'm so false?

In those instances where I've engaged in satire, I've made every due effort to make it starkly evident to anyone paying attention.

Now, though, even when I'm serious, people think I'm generally full of shit.

Aside from being true, that is a mean thing to say.



Okay, so, Jocabia, one of the parts that was throwing me a bit was the "leap of faith" description.

To be honest, just as a matter of language, the expression (even in the most figurative) implies, to me, some kind of conscious choice. Please hear me out.

The idea of the leap of faith I believe has its birth in the idea of jumping across a dark chasm when you don't know what is on the other side.

This imagery is meant to evoke the connotation of fear blended with hope, but moreso, recognizes a willingness of the leaper to accept the price of the unknown for the reward of faith.

That willingness, that excercise of the will, can certainly be gradual and multi-faceted, but if we apply the term "Leap of Faith", I honestly feel the phrase itself carries the implication of a deliberate, purposeful, conscious action.

Certainly, as you point out, the leap of faith is not meant to describe a physical jump, but the character of the act itself, at least when described with this phrase, is such that the willingness, the choice, is a part of the metaphor, perhaps even central to it.

That apprehension imagined before the "leap", that anticipation and the courage that pierces it, these can all be unconscious, but the jump, figurative as it may be, is described in a very active and deliberate fashion when used this way.

Now that you've described the gestation of your faith, I hope I understand it a little better, but I personally, just as a matter of language, would describe it as the birth and growth of faith, rather than the leap.

Birth and growth are inexorable, sometimes imperceptable and other times stunning in their urgency, but are done less consciously.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to describe your position more fully to me. I don't agree with your position entirely, but I think I hear your point with more clarity now.

You're being silly, Gartref. If infinite regression were even a sound concept, that would mean there are infinite negative numbers. Thales of Miletus proved they stop at -8 x 10^456.

Secondly, it follows without any necessary evidence that its impossible for ontological primacy to be assigned to the universe unless it includes a sentient being that is specifically concerned with humanity.

Besides, an idea like rectilinear motion is hardly subject to complications related to space-time modeling. If it were, there would be an entire range of mathematics and physics grappling with the problem.

Nope, Atlantian Islands is correct. The fact of motion means there must be a Divine Being who pushed the first marble, and that Divine Being was never born and will never die, because you can have that property as long as you're worshipped.



yeah that was disproven a couple of years ago srry

What they've been shown quite clearly is that when you don't have an answer, you substitute derision for argument. It's your

standard practice.

Interesting. Then why did I answer J? Oops.

See, I deride poor argumentation. It deserves it. Take offense all you like, but I'm going to keep pointing out your argument

sucks as long as it sucks. I've been absolutely explicit in how it sucks, why it sucks and what you'd need to do to fix

it.

But you haven't really, have you? This is another of your standard tricks. You respond to an argument by calling it prejudiced or ignorant or, in this case, just saying it sucks - but you don't really refute it. Then in future posts, you claim you already dealt with the argument. This is a winning strategy for you because lacking an actual argument, you'll take a win through endurance. People just give up because your bullshit is too thick to wade through.

No. Whether it is true or false makes no difference. Most often, the reasons given for a belief are the

benefits gained through believing. If your reasons for believing don't fall into this catagory, then it doesn't apply to you.

But I bet they do. These inherent values you talk about - what are they? Are they beneficial to you any way? Do they make you

sleep better at night? Do they give you any comfort?

You start out telling me what I believe. Like I said, if you're looking to have a real discussion you might have waited till

more than a post in to tell me what I believe.

But at least you're consistent.


Well you seem to be intentionally telling a lie here. In this quote, I did not start out telling you what you believe. I simply made a general statement about belief and then said "If your reasons for believing don't fall into this catagory, then it doesn't apply to you." I then went on to speculate that I bet your reasons did fall into this catagory. But I didn't state it as a fact. I then you gave you ample opportunity to show me an example of why your beliefs don't fall in the catagory. That was
the whole point. You know that and are deliberately misrepresenting it now in an effort to deceive.


Oh, hey, look you qualified your use of "leap of faith" with "conscious". A necessary qualifier.

When I say that believing wasn't a conscious decision, you intentionally conflate it with "leap of

faith".

I tend to qualify terms to the point of redundancy when I deal with slippery folks like you. I do this to avoid situations where a dishonest debator will simply redefine his terms later on when he's losing. From the very beginning, you had an opportunity to make the distinction between conscious and unconscious leaps. Because you are so slippery, I made it obvious what I was talking about from the very start. You didn't seem to have a problem with it until it much later when it became convenient for you to do so.



Then there is the various forms of hyperbole and prejudice you offer up on top of assuming what I beleive

because I have faith.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gartref
Religion fulfills so many psychological needs!

It can make sense of a profoundly complex universe.

It can calm the fear of death.

It can make you feel special or safe or loved.

It can satisfy your needs of justice or revenge.

It can make you money or get you laid.

It can give you instant authority without earning it.

It's pretty much the most useful thing since fire.


Again, how are any of these statements incorrect? Religion fills a plethora of psychological needs and their utility was a core issue in this debate. What you cannot refute you deride - It's your way.


Note that in both of the bolds, you assume, once explicitly and once implicitly, that there can be no

additional benefits. This again is an assumption without evidence. Incidentally, you admit in this post exactly what I was

saying was wrong with your analogy. It assumes psychosomatic effects are the only effects of your generalized religion and in

doing so it MUST assume the religion is false since so many religion have benefits that are neither worldly nore

psychosomatic.

Of course I admit in the post that the analogy fails if you can provide intrinsic values. Hello! That was the test of the analogy. Until you provide me with something other than psychosomatic effects the analogy stands. I gave you the recipe for busting the analogy. I begged you to do it - but you said you weren't able - but have later revealed you were just unwilling.


I didn't say you said it. I said you assumed it.

In other words, you made it up. You can't evidence that assumption and by fact I can actually evidence that

I'm making the opposite assumption.

Quit telling lies, please. I didn't make it up. The assumption seem to be implicit in the argument you were making. In the next post, you said you misspoke - but yet you still accuse me of dishonesty for being confused by something you said in error and later recanted.

And one last bit on exactly how disingenuous you're being



So I don't have an answer.



Yet a few pages earilier that I DO have an answer, I just wasn't interested in taking your bait.

Man you are one slippery guy. The first quote was not specific to any one answer. It was a general observation that applies to your debate tactics. The second quote is specific to one answer - and why are you so proud of your reluctance to give that answer? The reason you didn't give that answer to me is because you knew I'd hammer you with it. Of course you claim that you didn't give me the answer because I wasn't worthy - or genuine enough to receive it - what a load of crap.

Everyone sees through that silliness.

So... don't talk to me about being genuine. You try to come off as all thoughtful, but you just want to deride people, score points and then get them in trouble.

Gartref, I have a favor to ask. You owe me no boons, but I'll ask on credit.

I'd love a proof of god, and this thread is the place for it.

You and Jocabia can give it to me.

Imagine a man with a dying mind, who wandered by mistake into a place of white columns and thoughts, though they were dancing digitally, but thoughts in such a medium are not dimished by their means.

Now, I see two, with living minds, grappling wastefully.

You are both so much better than this. I've been on this board for years, as one fool or another. I'm not asking you to end this argument, on the contrary, come with vigor.

But not like this.


Please, take a few posts to back up, clarify terms, and where you cannot agree to semantics, at least agree to hearing what the other intends to mean.

Find the fulcrum of your struggle, whether it is to your rhetorical advantage or not, and when the pivotal dispute is agreed upon, duel cleanly and without malice.

I know my melodrama is tiresome, but in all seriousness, I expect, this time next year, to be a brain stem with a fist full of flowers and a copy of Rael's book, hanging out at the mall, all so I won't hear the arguments anymore.

Both of you are better than this.

yeah that was disproven a couple of years ago srry

Ah, but the disproof was itself disproven by Georg Cantor in his famous work "Der Zarkasm Isht Nutuviusenuf".

Sorry.

Everyone sees through that silliness.

just a quick reminder:

you are debating jocabia but the other posters/readers in this thread are the judges of who is right and who is wrong.

you will never get jocabia (or anyone else you are debating) to admit that he is wrong. your thankless job is to convince US that you are right and he is wrong. thankless because there is no mechanism for casting a debate winner vote here.

so if you make your case well, we all see that you are right and it doesnt matter that jocabia posts the sorts of things you are complaining about here. we all see that it is unfair.

if you dont make your case, it doesnt matter that jocabia posts those kinds of things, you have lost anyway.

What if there was no origin point, and that there has been always a universe in motion?

Shhh. You'll make people's heads explode.

To add to TAI:

1) Einstein has already proved the universe is growing in size but is slowing in growth; and

2) That would defy the law of physics that states that all matter moves to a state of disorganization

Someone's probably already said this, but the growth of the universe isn't slowing--it's accelerating.

Someone's probably already said this, but the growth of the universe isn't slowing--it's accelerating.

Actually, no one has said it.

Also, his second point is wrong as well, mainly because the 2LoT is wrong.

Jerry Orbach was Law and Order, not Law and Order SVU!

SVU had..um...that asian psychologist guy you kinda sorta think is gay...

B.D. Wong? He is gay. I saw him at pride week! :D

But you haven't really, have you? This is another of your standard tricks. You respond to an argument by calling it prejudiced or ignorant or, in this case, just saying it sucks - but you don't really refute it. Then in future posts, you claim you already dealt with the argument. This is a winning strategy for you because lacking an actual argument, you'll take a win through endurance. People just give up because your bullshit is too thick to wade through.

Amusing. I ddin't say I refuted it. I showed why it's a bad argument. It's like you telling me that you like chicken wings. I tell ask you why you hate cows. You state that you don't hate cows and I whine that you didn't refute my point. I showed exactly what's wrong with your arguments and why they aren't worthwhile. There is nothing to refute because they rest on fallacies from jump.

But you're right. I cannot refute that the word leap refers to a physical leap. Clearly you nailed me on that one. Every one of your arguments is reasonable. What human being could see claiming that the leap in leap of faith is physical as disingenuous or ignorant?






Well you seem to be intentionally telling a lie here. In this quote, I did not start out telling you what you believe. I simply made a general statement about belief and then said "If your reasons for believing don't fall into this catagory, then it doesn't apply to you." I then went on to speculate that I bet your reasons did fall into this catagory. But I didn't state it as a fact. I then you gave you ample opportunity to show me an example of why your beliefs don't fall in the catagory. That was
the whole point. You know that and are deliberately misrepresenting it now in an effort to deceive.

You start by telling me what you think I believe. That's not open discourse and the problem got worse as the thread goes on. It's not a lie. You openly admit here that you did it. "I bet you fuck children." Yeah, there's no assumptions in that statement, right?






I tend to qualify terms to the point of redundancy when I deal with slippery folks like you. I do this to avoid situations where a dishonest debator will simply redefine his terms later on when he's losing. From the very beginning, you had an opportunity to make the distinction between conscious and unconscious leaps. Because you are so slippery, I made it obvious what I was talking about from the very start. You didn't seem to have a problem with it until it much later when it became convenient for you to do so.

I'm dishonest? I showed you alter my posts when you quoted them. I showed you qualifying leap of faith as conscious at one point and then claiming that unconscious leaps of faith don't exist, something you attempted to establish by claiming leaps can only be physical and then claimed I was cornered by your flawless logic. I kind of wish you were joking.





Again, how are any of these statements incorrect? Religion fills a plethora of psychological needs and their utility was a core issue in this debate. What you cannot refute you deride - It's your way.

Religion doesn't do all of those things. Religion is such a broad spectrum and so ill-defined that suggesting that you can broad brush it like that is silly. Meanwhile, the statements you made were pretending as if extremes are representative.

Here are my claims.

Why being a man is great:

You can slam dunk a basketball

You can do giants on a high bar

You can design skyscrapers

You can lead an empire

You have a 12-inch penis

You are taller than women.

--

Yeah I can't see what would be wrong with such things. Which of those is false? Certainly they all are true and my statements don't make them appear to be generally true. Right? Your method of painting religion is what falsifies your claim. There was nothing for me to do but point it out.



Of course I admit in the post that the analogy fails if you can provide intrinsic values. Hello! That was the test of the analogy. Until you provide me with something other than psychosomatic effects the analogy stands. I gave you the recipe for busting the analogy. I begged you to do it - but you said you weren't able - but have later revealed you were just unwilling.

I see, so it's true till I prove it false, right? Hmmm... you know what that fallacy is called?





Quit telling lies, please. I didn't make it up. The assumption seem to be implicit in the argument you were making. In the next post, you said you misspoke - but yet you still accuse me of dishonesty for being confused by something you said in error and later recanted.

Even with misspeaking it didn't say that. In fact I showed you repeatedly where I said they were seperate positions. You ignored this and claimed I held a different position.



Man you are one slippery guy. The first quote was not specific to any one answer. It was a general observation that applies to your debate tactics. The second quote is specific to one answer - and why are you so proud of your reluctance to give that answer? The reason you didn't give that answer to me is because you knew I'd hammer you with it. Of course you claim that you didn't give me the answer because I wasn't worthy - or genuine enough to receive it - what a load of crap.

Everyone sees through that silliness.

Yes, everyone does. You think you can convince people there is no substance behind my faith? I've got about 15000 posts on religion on this forum. You actually think you've got the power to make people forget 15000 posts? I'm a prolific debater, admittedly caustic, but well-known for knowing what I'm talking about and being willing to prove it. But hey, you wanna keep taking it to me? Cuz I'm thoroughly enjoying this.

You realize that when you make a general claim about my behavior and I show you exceptions it debunks your claim, right? When you say, the reason you are attacking me is because you cannot answer and then I show you admitting that I could on an issue that was pretty much the entire argument with the exception of that bit about placebos that you eventually capitulated.

Meanwhile, you keep calling me slippery? I showed you directly making up my argument and now you're pretending it's my fault. I showed you quoting me and altering the quote. But I'm the liar, right?

You dropped a good portion of my post yet again. It's no wonder why. Let's go ahead and put it back. Seriously, who do you think you're messing with?

Meanwhile, I didn't start believing and I don't keep believing for the reasons you state. Those are just advantages of my faith. Then again, I'm comforted by my knowledge of evolution and gravity, actually. It's not why I believe in them either. How comforting something is has little to do with how much or little emperical evidence it has. I find my beliefs comforting because I believe they're right, and because I'm comfortable continuing to examine them, not the other way around (believing they're right because they're comforting).

That's how I wrote it. Note that I reference both my faith and my belief in gravity and evolution while mentioning that I find things I believe to be true comforting regardless of the level of emperical evidence supporting them (because evolution has a lot and my faith requires a leap of faith.)

Here's how you quoted it though.

It's not why I believe in them either. How comforting something is has little to do with how much or little emperical evidence it has. I find my beliefs comforting because I believe they're right, and because I'm comfortable continuing to examine them, not the other way around (believing they're right because they're comforting).

So round & round we go. Are you now saying your belief is based on "emperical evidence" ???

Notice the part you cut from my post. All the bits about the things that have emperical evidence. So now it appears I'm apply emperical evidence to my faith rather than to gravity and evolution. What you removed - "Then again, I'm comforted by my knowledge of evolution and gravity, actually. It's not why I believe in them either." Changes the entire meaning. Then you use a misquote of me to support the assumption I'm claiming my faith has emperical evidence. How could anyone call you disingenuous?

I love how I showed that you disingenuously edit my posts to make it appear as if I've made a different argument and then in reply you cut things out of my post again.

So now, in between your bouts of suggesting my quotes of you are lies, why don't you address why you edited my post to make it appear I said something different than I said?

Well said. The people that put forth this argument keep asserting a false dilemna. They are excluding the middle ground. They admit they are taking a leap of faith in believing something without any evidence. They want to lessen the irrationality of this position by saying non-belief is also a leap of faith. But this would apply only to those who steadfastly deny the possibility of the divine, not those who just simply don't believe in the divine.

I believe for many the omission of the middle is willful.

Either that, or they just can't grasp the idea that one can choose to not leap forward and not to leap backward - but instead just stand there smiling, saying "WTF?"

Well said. Those who believe in God have often asked me how I can "known" there is no God, and I constantly have to explain that I don't. I can't possibly know, and my admission of that fact makes me the more honest and rational (in my own tiny brain).

Is "J" me?

Why does everybody think I'm so false?

Actually, if you look I said you're genuine, that you're just full of shit. In other words, you joke around a lot but the point you're trying to make is always genuine. That's why you got an answer from me. That's why Ashmoria gets answers from me. That's why Staughn and various others get answers from me. We don't always have to agree and when it comes to religion no one has all the answers. But arguing with people who simply use dishonesty to fill in the gaps is a waste of time.


In those instances where I've engaged in satire, I've made every due effort to make it starkly evident to anyone paying attention.

Now, though, even when I'm serious, people think I'm generally full of shit.

Aside from being true, that is a mean thing to say.

Honestly, I don't know anyone who doesn't generally realize that you're making a point with your satire and that whether you're using it or not you're actually attempting to have a reasoned argument.

I truly intended it as a compliment. You should certainly take it as a compliment that I find talking to you extremely worthwhile. And you should also take it as a compliment that I think you're generally full of shit. You just have to look at the context of the statement to see it's not intended as an insult in any way.

Okay, so, Jocabia, one of the parts that was throwing me a bit was the "leap of faith" description.

To be honest, just as a matter of language, the expression (even in the most figurative) implies, to me, some kind of conscious choice. Please hear me out.

The idea of the leap of faith I believe has its birth in the idea of jumping across a dark chasm when you don't know what is on the other side.

This imagery is meant to evoke the connotation of fear blended with hope, but moreso, recognizes a willingness of the leaper to accept the price of the unknown for the reward of faith.

See, that's not how I take it. I think you're mostly right. I think the leaper expresses a willingness to accept the price of the unknown. But I don't think it's about a reward. I want to find truth. Some things I can't get any closer to truth than just believing what I feel is right. That's where the leap of faith comes in.

I do think that our disagreement is semantic though. Where I said it was disingenuous is that I said my leap wasn't conscious and it was suggested that I just entirely denied ever having made a leap of faith and was trying to change my argument to get out of corner. There is a big difference between me meaning a term differently than someone else, and my changing my argument. It was a rather pathetic attempt by him to claim some kind of victory in the face of the rather obvious fact that I'd caught him making several unevidenced assumptions, making leaps of faith. People who try to take the high ground by claiming they never make leaps of faith get pissed when you prove they're not better than anyone else.


That willingness, that excercise of the will, can certainly be gradual and multi-faceted, but if we apply the term "Leap of Faith", I honestly feel the phrase itself carries the implication of a deliberate, purposeful, conscious action.

Sure, and that willingness is certainly counscious but whether you believe something or not is not a choice. Certainly you can do things that will affect whether you will believe or not. It's like saying I consciously chose to weight 200 pounds. But I didn't. I consciously chose to do things and those things resulted in my weight, but I never chose my weight.


Certainly, as you point out, the leap of faith is not meant to describe a physical jump, but the character of the act itself, at least when described with this phrase, is such that the willingness, the choice, is a part of the metaphor, perhaps even central to it.

The leap simply signifies jumping over the need for evidence. Certainly that can signify both conscious and subconscious or unconscious arrivals at a belief. For example if you ask a person who is severely claustophobic if they believe they are going to die when they're in a closet, they will say yes. They realize it's ludicrous but you can't seriously claim that somone who is freaking out in a closet because they truly believe they will die if the door isn't opened that they chose to believe. Now, I wouldn't describe that as a leap of faith, since it's an extreme example and actually is counter to the evidence.



That apprehension imagined before the "leap", that anticipation and the courage that pierces it, these can all be unconscious, but the jump, figurative as it may be, is described in a very active and deliberate fashion when used this way.

Now that you've described the gestation of your faith, I hope I understand it a little better, but I personally, just as a matter of language, would describe it as the birth and growth of faith, rather than the leap.

Birth and growth are inexorable, sometimes imperceptable and other times stunning in their urgency, but are done less consciously.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to describe your position more fully to me. I don't agree with your position entirely, but I think I hear your point with more clarity now.

Actually, as much as CanuckHeaven and I go at it, he once quoted me quite clearly in terms of what I believe. I should make it very clear that part of why I'm so disappointed with CanuckHeaven's tactics regarding Obama is because I think he's very intelligent and a very good debater when he wants to be.

I'm hanging with my nephews at the moment, but I'll link to it before I go to bed tonight.

I think you'll see why I am so hesitant to call it conscious. I think it requires a fairly distinct effort to deny believing something that feels true to you. But believing something that so clearly feels true is not really conscious. Again, I have to go, but I'll link. For the record, that CH compiled them into a single post long after I'd forgetten I'd written it really struck me. CH holds a special place to me because of it.

The OP doesn't know shit about anything. And by anything I mean physics. And by physics I mean makin' love to a woman.

I might have to sig this. Five posts and you've already made me go into a laughing/coughing/wheezy fit of bronchitis (it's a good thing, really).

It's a difference in the essence of what you're talking about. You don't decide to like vanilla ice cream. You just like vanilla ice cream. Now you may have gathered evidence along the way, by trying other flavors, but you just like vanilla.

I'm not suggesting something as inherent as flavor, but it gets to the core of it. I can't decide to believe God doesn't exist or decide to stop believe God exists. By the nature of faith, you can't make yourself have it. You simply examine your understanding and what you feel is right. But you can't control much of that. It's just a gathering of information of sorts. A clarification. It's complicated, and my explanation of how I got to my current faith takes chapters, but the long and the short is that to call it a decision is to suggest that people decide to like vanilla ice cream.

What if I like peanut butter-chocolate AND mint chip AND blueberry cheesecake and I can't decide between them? What if I decide to get a scoop of each in a gigantic waffle cone? Can I then logically put Jesus, Ganesh and Muhammad in a waffle cone?

What if I like peanut butter-chocolate AND mint chip AND blueberry cheesecake and I can't decide between them? What if I decide to get a scoop of each in a gigantic waffle cone? Can I then logically put Jesus, Ganesh and Muhammad in a waffle cone?

Sure, why not? You'll just have to put Ganesh in last.

But then he'll squish Jesus. :( Maybe that proves Hinduism is the true religion...

Not if the angle of the waffle cone is steep enough, his head will get caught in the top leaving space in the bottom for Jesus and Mohammed.

If God doesn't exist then explain all the Healing places.

If God doesn't exist then explain penicillin. ...oh, wait.

Sure, why not? You'll just have to put Ganesh in last.

But then he'll squish Jesus. :( Maybe that proves Hinduism is the true religion...

Sure, and that willingness is certainly counscious but whether you believe something or not is not a choice. Certainly you can do things that will affect whether you will believe or not. It's like saying I consciously chose to weight 200 pounds. But I didn't. I consciously chose to do things and those things resulted in my weight, but I never chose my weight.

I like the weight comparison better than the "leap" comparison, I'll say that.
Its tendency for gradual change seems to better reflect some of your descriptions of your spiritual progressions.




Actually, as much as CanuckHeaven and I go at it, he once quoted me quite clearly in terms of what I believe. I should make it very clear that part of why I'm so disappointed with CanuckHeaven's tactics regarding Obama is because I think he's very intelligent and a very good debater when he wants to be.

I'm hanging with my nephews at the moment, but I'll link to it before I go to bed tonight.

I think you'll see why I am so hesitant to call it conscious. I think it requires a fairly distinct effort to deny believing something that feels true to you. But believing something that so clearly feels true is not really conscious. Again, I have to go, but I'll link. For the record, that CH compiled them into a single post long after I'd forgetten I'd written it really struck me. CH holds a special place to me because of it.

It was kind of him to do that for you.

I'm unfamiliar with your Obama debates. Hopefully you and CH will find some common ground or at least share perspectives.

To be honest, of CH's posts, I can't really be enthusiastic.

I've seen him accuse posters of flames, i.e. "Hurry back, your flames keep me warm!", then later lie and say he was only accusing the other of flamebaiting, even when quotes clearly indicate otherwise. When Mods found no indication of flames or flamebaiting, he derides the other for running to the mods to "soothe their wounds".

Similarly, I've seen him accuse others of bad "reasoning skills" for examining the opposing idea and its implications, then he supports Pascals Wager which does precisely the same thing.

I've seen him roundly decry others as illogical for being without supporting evidence, on threads where he has made numerous declarative categorical statements without support.

I've watched him tell others they aren't qualified to discuss the existence of God, whereas he does so freely and with eager absolutism.

When reasonable parallel and analogy are used to illustrate flaws in his premise, he often responds with "nice analogy, but I'm not changing it", and that is the entirety of his response. Its within his rights, to be sure, but I don't think its good debate. Quite often, his response to a cogent critique is nothing more than "I don't have to prove anything to you". A true statement, but not intelligent debate.

I'm glad you have found some positive things. Its only the internet, and I'm sure he is a good person, but I can't share your regard for him.

Anyway, Jocabia, please try to work things out with Gartref. The current exchange is of a demeanor beneath both of you.

I like the weight comparison better than the "leap" comparison, I'll say that.
Its tendency for gradual change seems to better reflect some of your descriptions of your spiritual progressions.

It does.



It was kind of him to do that for you.

I don't think he did it for me. That's why it was so kind. He was simply reflecting his opinion.


I'm unfamiliar with your Obama debates. Hopefully you and CH will find some common ground or at least share perspectives.

Gosh, I really hope not. He's clearly not attempting to reasonably approach the topic, at least in my opinion. I like that I'm approaching the topic from an open and positve perspective. I don't like negative politics. I don't mind disagreeing. I mind where it doesn't appear they are trying to give you an clear view on why they disagree.


To be honest, of CH's posts, I can't really be enthusiastic.

I've seen him accuse posters of flames, i.e. "Hurry back, your flames keep me warm!", then later lie and say he was only accusing the other of flamebaiting, even when quotes clearly indicate otherwise. When Mods found no indication of flames or flamebaiting, he derides the other for running to the mods to "soothe their wounds".

Similarly, I've seen him accuse others of bad "reasoning skills" for examining the opposing idea and its implications, then he supports Pascals Wager which does precisely the same thing.

I've seen him roundly decry others as illogical for being without supporting evidence, on threads where he has made numerous declarative categorical statements without support.

I've watched him tell others they aren't qualified to discuss the existence of God, whereas he does so freely and with eager absolutism.

When reasonable parallel and analogy are used to illustrate flaws in his premise, he often responds with "nice analogy, but I'm not changing it", and that is the entirety of his response. Its within his rights, to be sure, but I don't think its good debate. Quite often, his response to a cogent critique is nothing more than "I don't have to prove anything to you". A true statement, but not intelligent debate.

I'm glad you have found some positive things. Its only the internet, and I'm sure he is a good person, but I can't share your regard for him.

Anyway, Jocabia, please try to work things out with Gartref. The current exchange is of a demeanor beneath both of you.

Frankly, I'm not interesting. I caught him changing my posts in effort to change my argument. He's attempted to change my argument several times. I'm not interested in that type of debate. I'm often caustic, but I'm not dishonest. I've honestly never edited someone's post other than to suggest a paraphrase. He not only did so but made no mention of doing so.

As to CH, what you're describing is something I've caught him doing in the thread I was talking about, but honestly I've also seen him very reasonable debate. I have to say that the part where he just says, no, and then pretends he's already addressed your evidence is pretty annoying. I don't think it's reflective of his intelligence however. I didn't want to get into another critique of Ch here. I was simply demonstrating that being caustic is always reflective of my feelings about a poster. Dem and I are actually pretty good friends in my estimation, but she and I have absolutely been at one another's throats.

I do not have very much respect for "debating" techniques that require you to alter the posts of others however. Look at them yourself. I would be shocked if you didn't find it more than a little shady. As such, I have little interest in anything changing at all.

Here's the post where he basically compiled the whole story. Obviously, even as such, it's rather abbreviated.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13150123&postcount=59

Some guy found Noah's Ark on a Mountain in Turkey or some such place.

That's my proof.Proof for what? That Enki/Ea/Yah told Utnapishtim to build an Ark to save himself from Enlil's Flood? And that Utnapishtim did as he was told and finally landed on Mount Cudi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount%20Judi)? Cool, you should start worshiping Enki at once.

Dukeburyshire you are epic lulz