• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Doubt, faith and denial

Tim the plumber said:

On a debating forum there should not be a safe zone for one group who like it when there are only friendlies about.
Click to expand...

True then its not really debating at all. My only point with separating Atheism from philosophy was to curb the overwhelming amount of posts that have nothing to do with philosophy. Some people that frequent the religious forum seem to get their rocks off by trolling the philosophy forum. And gets annoying when there is a good conversation then some poster starts preaching the gospels and making it all about his beliefs completely derailing the conversation. Which was most likely the trolls goal in the first place.
 
I've noticed a tendency for some atheists to be rude towards others who don't share their disbelief. It's not debating, it's just jeering, ridiculing. Because they don't understand how someone could believe in God, they find it ridiculous. I suspect that has something to do with the special rules in the religion forum.
 
Tim the plumber said:
It's really simple;

I think that this;-



is trying to give an air of gravitas and profoundity to a meaningless statement. If you can explain how it does not apply to anything that cannot be understood or that it means something else then I will be educated.

If you cannot do this then I will consider that I am right. I will also continue to think that it illustrates the whole point of this thread in that it is a prime example of something very close to lying. I will call it untruth. That is the avoidance of the subject to divert the conversation and thus have the show of winning the argument without anything significant being said.
Click to expand...

look at you using those big words....:rock

The statement isn't meaningless simply because you cannot understand it. What Kierkegaard was saying oh damn, there I go name dropping again, but you know I think it's kind of fun, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Pascal, Descartes, Hume, Aristotle, Plato, Heidegger, Sartre, Leibniz,Tillich, Buber, Heschel, Aquinas, Kant, Hume, Hegel, I mean...........once you get started, it really is a fun past time.....Bacon, Epicurus, James, Judah, Marx, Swedenborg, Moreland, Russel, Maimonides, Hick, Al-ghazali, Barth, Camus, Jaspers, Husserl, I mean seriously you should really try it, g'head.... Gasset, Wittgenstein, Levinas, Socrates, Arendt, ok, ok, ok, ok, I've got to stop....

Well, that was fun, but let me get back to you. Now, Because you cannot understand something objectively what does that mean? See, you're playing games acting like you're unaware of what is being said, and I find it a tedious bore.

Kierkegaard Oh, damn, ....Lacydes, Hegias, Diocles, Dexippus, Atticus, Cassius, ok, stop, alright, Kierkegaard wasn't interested in proving an existence of God objectively, he, like myself, hence the reason I quoted him, and if you took my post as a whole would have seen had you not been so concerned with the Who's Who's list of famous smart guys, insist that one must choose to believe in God, that it is we are dealing with the subjective and not the objective, are you starting to comprehend or am I using too big of words??

So, as you can hopefully see now, clearly, like it came to you in a vision, your opinion on God matters not to me and mine because it is the subjective I deal in and you're not invited to the party...Sorry...:shrug:
 
Paleocon said:
I would disagree with the quote in question, as it displays a fideistic attitude. How on Earth that discredits my use of the phrase "ontological nihilists" is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I haven't commented on your use of that phrase as I think it's yet another example of the use of big words to give an air of intellect to a nothing statement.
 
ChezC3 said:
look at you using those big words....:rock

The statement isn't meaningless simply because you cannot understand it. What Kierkegaard was saying oh damn, there I go name dropping again, but you know I think it's kind of fun, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Pascal, Descartes, Hume, Aristotle, Plato, Heidegger, Sartre, Leibniz,Tillich, Buber, Heschel, Aquinas, Kant, Hume, Hegel, I mean...........once you get started, it really is a fun past time.....Bacon, Epicurus, James, Judah, Marx, Swedenborg, Moreland, Russel, Maimonides, Hick, Al-ghazali, Barth, Camus, Jaspers, Husserl, I mean seriously you should really try it, g'head.... Gasset, Wittgenstein, Levinas, Socrates, Arendt, ok, ok, ok, ok, I've got to stop....

Well, that was fun, but let me get back to you. Now, Because you cannot understand something objectively what does that mean? See, you're playing games acting like you're unaware of what is being said, and I find it a tedious bore.

Kierkegaard Oh, damn, ....Lacydes, Hegias, Diocles, Dexippus, Atticus, Cassius, ok, stop, alright, Kierkegaard wasn't interested in proving an existence of God objectively, he, like myself, hence the reason I quoted him, and if you took my post as a whole would have seen had you not been so concerned with the Who's Who's list of famous smart guys, insist that one must choose to believe in God, that it is we are dealing with the subjective and not the objective, are you starting to comprehend or am I using too big of words??

So, as you can hopefully see now, clearly, like it came to you in a vision, your opinion on God matters not to me and mine because it is the subjective I deal in and you're not invited to the party...Sorry...:shrug:
Click to expand...

Wot?

You have not explained what your statement meant if it was not what I took it to mean.
Kierkegaard has a quote I'm quite fond of and have posted it frequently here on this site;

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."
Click to expand...

The statement seems clear in it's meaning to me. I think that it's meaning is silly. It's meaning applies to God and just as well to Santa.

P.S. Be careful which names of philosophers you quote, you have quoted at least one notable atheist anti-God campaigner. In fact looking at it twice they are mostly atheists and you have obviously not heard of many as you repeat a lot. You are not good at it. LOL!
 
Tim the plumber said:
Wot?

You have not explained what your statement meant if it was not what I took it to mean.


The statement seems clear in it's meaning to me. I think that it's meaning is silly. It's meaning applies to God and just as well to Santa.

P.S. Be careful which names of philosophers you quote, you have quoted at least one notable atheist anti-God campaigner. In fact looking at it twice they are mostly atheists and you have obviously not heard of many as you repeat a lot. You are not good at it. LOL!
Click to expand...

I didn't repeat one :lamo
 
Tim the plumber said:
Wot?

You have not explained what your statement meant if it was not what I took it to mean.


The statement seems clear in it's meaning to me. I think that it's meaning is silly. It's meaning applies to God and just as well to Santa.

P.S. Be careful which names of philosophers you quote, you have quoted at least one notable atheist anti-God campaigner. In fact looking at it twice they are mostly atheists and you have obviously not heard of many as you repeat a lot. You are not good at it. LOL!
Click to expand...


Further, you did not take my meaning of you not taking your meaning as the meaning was clearly presented and explained being purposefully dimwitted, as you continue in your charade now, will only get you more of the same as was given.
 
ChezC3 said:
look at you using those big words....:rock

The statement isn't meaningless simply because you cannot understand it. What Kierkegaard was saying oh damn, there I go name dropping again, but you know I think it's kind of fun, Kierkegaard, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Pascal, Descartes, Hume, Aristotle, Plato, Heidegger, Sartre, Leibniz,Tillich, Buber, Heschel, Aquinas, Kant, Hume, Hegel, I mean...........once you get started, it really is a fun past time.....Bacon, Epicurus, James, Judah, Marx, Swedenborg, Moreland, Russel, Maimonides, Hick, Al-ghazali, Barth, Camus, Jaspers, Husserl, I mean seriously you should really try it, g'head.... Gasset, Wittgenstein, Levinas, Socrates, Arendt, ok, ok, ok, ok, I've got to stop....

Well, that was fun, but let me get back to you. Now, Because you cannot understand something objectively what does that mean? See, you're playing games acting like you're unaware of what is being said, and I find it a tedious bore.

Kierkegaard Oh, damn, ....Lacydes, Hegias, Diocles, Dexippus, Atticus, Cassius, ok, stop, alright, Kierkegaard wasn't interested in proving an existence of God objectively, he, like myself, hence the reason I quoted him, and if you took my post as a whole would have seen had you not been so concerned with the Who's Who's list of famous smart guys, insist that one must choose to believe in God, that it is we are dealing with the subjective and not the objective, are you starting to comprehend or am I using too big of words??

So, as you can hopefully see now, clearly, like it came to you in a vision, your opinion on God matters not to me and mine because it is the subjective I deal in and you're not invited to the party...Sorry...:shrug:
Click to expand...

sabcidsacdsabvbfvfqfnvfno dnvosqnvoqnve
 
Tim the plumber said:
I haven't commented on your use of that phrase as I think it's yet another example of the use of big words to give an air of intellect to a nothing statement.
Click to expand...

Me thinks the airs are yours, and it smells rank of beans...
 
ChezC3 said:
Further, you did not take my meaning of you not taking your meaning as the meaning was clearly presented and explained being purposefully dimwitted, as you continue in your charade now, will only get you more of the same as was given.
Click to expand...

Again WOT?

I can only see the one meaning of your quote. I have said that it's a silly meaning. You have said that that is not it's meaning. I have asked you to explain you have refused.

You know that you are avoiding the truth. Doing an untruth. Whilst it's carefully not dishonest it's unhonest.

You speak unplainly and try to sound clever whilst doing so. This is what this thread is about. Untruth.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Again WOT?

I can only see the one meaning of your quote. I have said that it's a silly meaning. You have said that that is not it's meaning. I have asked you to explain you have refused.

You know that you are avoiding the truth. Doing an untruth. Whilst it's carefully not dishonest it's unhonest.

You speak unplainly and try to sound clever whilst doing so. This is what this thread is about. Untruth.
Click to expand...

IDK. you tell me, can you C or do you need to B spoon fed Again?

You've not learned a damn thing in this entire exchange.
I'm not avoiding anything, I'm smacking you right across the Chevy Chase with the truth...

Peasants should avoid the King's English...don't wanna go putting on airs now...:naughty

My words are crystal,

Your entire premise is untruthful...reeks of cat's piss like only a lie can...
 
ChezC3 said:
IDK. you tell me, can you C or do you need to B spoon fed Again?

You've not learned a damn thing in this entire exchange.
I'm not avoiding anything, I'm smacking you right across the Chevy Chase with the truth...

Peasants should avoid the King's English...don't wanna go putting on airs now...:naughty

My words are crystal,

Your entire premise is untruthful...reeks of cat's piss like only a lie can...
Click to expand...
I'll count that as you surrender speech.

If you have lost any ability to debate you should avoid debating not spout incoherent insults.

The winner in a debate is not measured just by the last to say something. You have to put forward arguments and ideas which convince others that you have a good point. Refusing to explain your statements looks ridiculous.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I'll count that as you surrender speech.

If you have lost any ability to debate you should avoid debating not spout incoherent insults.

The winner in a debate is not measured just by the last to say something. You have to put forward arguments and ideas which convince others that you have a good point. Refusing to explain your statements looks ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You've gotten everything else wrong thus far, why stop now...

If they were incoherent how could you possibly determine they were insults?

I've put them forward and you've refuted nothing but instead pretended that you're dimwitted.

Claiming a sentence is silly or meaningless when it is neither offering nothing but ridicule for rebuttal is what is ridiculous...
 
You said;

Kierkegaard has a quote I'm quite fond of and have posted it frequently here on this site;

"If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe."
Click to expand...

I read that as; I believe anything I cannot understand because I cannot understand it.

You say you do not mean it in that way. How do you mean it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom