• 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!

Quag and the Angel: a dialogue

Individual said:
Except that no one is trying to change YOUR views to theirs, ONLY disagreeing to accept YOUR views for their own.
You claim God exists. No problem.
You claim you can prove God exists. Show us.
Your proof fails to be accepted. You show an inability to accept failure.
I think most, if not all, of us who found your philosophical premises lacking for various reasons don't really care if you continue to believe in the existence of a God or not. And while none of us can, or have even tried to prove that God doesn't exist, the reality is that it doesn't change anything as no one REALLY knows anything at all about the being they call God.
Click to expand...
The failure is yours both for not understanding and for not engaging my argument. And I don't give a rat's ass what you or anyone else doesn't believe.
And "a bone of contention" is something people disagree on, period.
 
Angel said:
The failure is yours both for not understanding and for not engaging my argument. And I don't give a rat's ass what you or anyone else doesn't believe.
And "a bone of contention" is something people disagree on, period.
Click to expand...
Obviously belief is the basis of everything for you.
 
Angel said:
And for you as well. For everybody.
Click to expand...

Beliefs proven true are what we find most useful.

But I agree that unproven/unprovable beliefs can also be useful when employed upon those who are willing to believe without need of proof.

Nature has no need of God(s), most religions would cease to exist without God(s).
 
Individual said:
Beliefs proven true are what we find most useful.

But I agree that unproven/unprovable beliefs can also be useful when employed upon those who are willing to believe without need of proof.

Nature has no need of God(s), most religions would cease to exist without God(s).
Click to expand...
True belief is knowledge. Is knowledge useful? Sure.
Nature is explained by God. God is the explanation of Nature. Religions are about God, and the religious impulse is innate and ineradicable. Atheism is the aberration.
 
Angel said:
True belief is knowledge. Is knowledge useful? Sure.
Nature is explained by God. God is the explanation of Nature. Religions are about God, and the religious impulse is innate and ineradicable. Atheism is the aberration.
Click to expand...

Nature has never been explained "BY" God, but only by humans who had NO knowledge available to them to answer the questions being asked so Gods were created to fill the void.

Modern day belief in God(s) is an aberration. But now we're moving into religion/religious territory with such claims.
 
Angel said:
First of all, "putting the two together" is not inserting anything in either.
Given your claim and your rationale and given my claim using the same rationale -- discussion of arguments becomes an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

First of all you are making a strawman, any claims to the contrary are dishonest
The discussion is futile l because you refuse to engage honestly preferring to make strawmen in order to avoid delaing with the failures of your so called proofs
 
Quag said:
First of all you are making a strawman, any claims to the contrary are dishonest
The discussion is futile l because you refuse to engage honestly preferring to make strawmen in order to avoid delaing with the failures of your so called proofs
Click to expand...
First of all, I am making no strawman -- your repeated assertions that I am making a srtawman are either dishonest or honestly confused by the turn in our dialogue that discredited your reasoning.

Here it is again, in its simplest terms:

1. Quag claims that belief is merely opinion.
2. Quag supports this claim by appeal to the dictionary.
3. Quag justifies his choice of definition by what he means to say in his claim.

4. Angel claims that all premises are beliefs.
5. Angel follows Quag by supporting this claim by appeal to the dictionary.
6. Angel follows Quag by justifying his choice of definition by what he means to say in his claim.

And right there all discussion of arguments becomes futile.
And we get there by way of Quag's method of support and justification.

And that is that, Quag.
 
Individual said:
Nature has never been explained "BY" God, but only by humans who had NO knowledge available to them to answer the questions being asked so Gods were created to fill the void.

Modern day belief in God(s) is an aberration. But now we're moving into religion/religious territory with such claims.
Click to expand...
God is the only explanation of Nature there is, was, and ever will be. And science has not answered any of the important questions that have haunted mankind from time immemorial. Science has barely scratched the surface of how the physical universe works -- that's all -- and it is constantly revising its answers, so your faith in science is just that: faith. And scientific faith v religious faith is like a featherweight facing a heavyweight in the ring.
 
Angel said:
God is the only explanation of Nature there is, was, and ever will be. And science has not answered any of the important questions that have haunted mankind from time immemorial. Science has barely scratched the surface of how the physical universe works -- that's all -- and it is constantly revising its answers, so your faith in science is just that: faith. And scientific faith v religious faith is like a featherweight facing a heavyweight in the ring.
Click to expand...

God has explained NOTHING at all. Science continues to increase our knowledge in ways we continue to put to use. Just compare the Intel 4004 chip to the CPU chip in your computer today. What scientific knowledge existed 6000 or even 2000 years ago that hasn't been greatly advanced today? Gods have diminished greatly in their number and the events of nature once thought to be actions attributed to Gods.
 
Angel said:
First of all, I am making no strawman -- your repeated assertions that I am making a srtawman are either dishonest or honestly confused by the turn in our dialogue that discredited your reasoning.

Here it is again, in its simplest terms:

1. Quag claims that belief is merely opinion.
2. Quag supports this claim by appeal to the dictionary.
3. Quag justifies his choice of definition by what he means to say in his claim.

4. Angel claims that all premises are beliefs.
5. Angel follows Quag by supporting this claim by appeal to the dictionary.
6. Angel follows Quag by justifying his choice of definition by what he means to say in his claim.

And right there all discussion of arguments becomes futile.
And we get there by way of Quag's method of support and justification.

And that is that, Quag.
Click to expand...

Yes that is your strawman and discussion is futile when one person insists on making a strawman
 
Quag said:
Yes that is your strawman and discussion is futile when one person insists on making a strawman
Click to expand...
No, that is not "my" strawman, nor do you seem to know what a straw man argument even is -- it's an argument one fabricates and attributes to one's opponent. In this case both your claim and your support and reasoning have been verified many times in this thread. You don't like the result? You have only yourself to blame.
 
Individual said:
God has explained NOTHING at all. Science continues to increase our knowledge in ways we continue to put to use. Just compare the Intel 4004 chip to the CPU chip in your computer today. What scientific knowledge existed 6000 or even 2000 years ago that hasn't been greatly advanced today? Gods have diminished greatly in their number and the events of nature once thought to be actions attributed to Gods.
Click to expand...
It is a sad commentary indeed on Internet Skepticism that its acolytes actually believe this silliness. I think it stems from lack of exposure to the great works of literature, a cultural deficiency in other words. Like a vitamin deficiency of the soul.
 
Angel said:
It is a sad commentary indeed on Internet Skepticism that its acolytes actually believe this silliness. I think it stems from lack of exposure to the great works of literature, a cultural deficiency in other words. Like a vitamin deficiency of the soul.
Click to expand...

Broaden your mind a little and try reading some non-fiction literature, or at least learn to discern the difference between what is fiction and non-fiction.

Most often your posts become more reasoned/rational/reasonable by applying some word changes.

"It is a sad commentary indeed on Internet God believers that its acolytes actually believe their silliness. I think it stems from over-exposure to the myths created by early humans, a cultural dependency in other words. Like the mind of someone on a perpetually hallucinogenic high."

In cases, as defined above, reality becomes evasive.

Prevarication appears to be your forte.
 
Last edited:
Individual said:
Broaden your mind a little and try reading some non-fiction literature, or at least learn to discern the difference between what is fiction and non-fiction.

Most often your posts become more reasoned/rational/reasonable by applying some word changes.

"It is a sad commentary indeed on Internet God believers that its acolytes actually believe their silliness. I think it stems from over-exposure to the myths created by early humans, a cultural dependency in other words. Like the mind of someone on a perpetually hallucinogenic high."

In cases, as defined above, reality becomes evasive.

Prevarication appears to be your forte.
Click to expand...
Would you like to discuss fiction and non-fiction with me? We can start a thread like this one devoted to our discussion.
As for the rest of your post, this PeeWeeHermanism of Internet Skepticism, whereby some silly substitution of terms in an opponents statement passes for insight, just doesn't cut the mustard, I'm afraid. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, to be sure, but these substitutions are so clumsily done as to effect a certain unwitting parody.
 
Angel said:
Would you like to discuss fiction and non-fiction with me? We can start a thread like this one devoted to our discussion. As for the rest of your post, this PeeWeeHermanism of Internet Skepticism, whereby some silly substitution of terms in an opponents statement passes for insight, just doesn't cut the mustard, I'm afraid. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, to be sure, but these substitutions are so clumsily done as to effect a certain unwitting parody.
Click to expand...
Why not just concentrate on Proof of God?
 
Individual said:
Why not just concentrate on Proof of God?
Click to expand...
I do concentrate on proof of God, in the appropriate place, in the thread entitled "Proof of God." This thread is a meta-thread, a thread about argument and belief.
 
Angel said:
I do concentrate on proof of God, in the appropriate place, in the thread entitled "Proof of God." This thread is a meta-thread, a thread about argument and belief.
Click to expand...

You haven't advanced your argument in the "Proof of God" thread one iota yet.

The OP of THIS thread states:

"Among the topics to be discussed are:

1. logic and argument
2. morality
3. the existence of God "

The existence of God would require some proof, would it not?
 
Individual said:
You haven't advanced your argument in the "Proof of God" thread one iota yet.

The OP of THIS thread states:

"Among the topics to be discussed are:

1. logic and argument
2. morality
3. the existence of God "

The existence of God would require some proof, would it not?
Click to expand...
Still not reading the posts you reply to, ay? So I must repeat:This is a meta-thread, a thread about argument and belief. If you want proof of God, the thread "Proof of God" contains eight of them.
 
Angel said:
Still not reading the posts you reply to, ay? So I must repeat:This is a meta-thread, a thread about argument and belief. If you want proof of God, the thread "Proof of God" contains eight of them.
Click to expand...

The words from the OP of THIS thread state:
"Among the topics to be discussed are:

1. logic and argument
2. morality
3. the existence of God "

Your "Proof of God" thread contains:
Eight attempts, zero proof.

You have only presented arguments for what you believe to be true for the support of your belief in, or of, a God.
And when presented with the errors in your arguments your inability to resolve questions asked results in ignoring the questions and attacking those "Internet Skeptics?"who have simply posed questions.
 
Individual said:
The words from the OP of THIS thread state:
"Among the topics to be discussed are:

1. logic and argument
2. morality
3. the existence of God "

Your "Proof of God" thread contains:
Eight attempts, zero proof.

You have only presented arguments for what you believe to be true for the support of your belief in, or of, a God.
And when presented with the errors in your arguments your inability to resolve questions asked results in ignoring the questions and attacking those "Internet Skeptics?"who have simply posed questions.
Click to expand...
If you don't know what the prefix "meta" means, admit as much or google the concept. This thread is not about the existence of God, but about the belief and arguments involved in that topic.

If you want to discuss God's existence, go to the thread indicated.

If you can bear the certainty that God is Real, then go to the thread entitled "God is Real."
 
Angel said:
If you don't know what the prefix "meta" means, admit as much or google the concept. This thread is not about the existence of God, but about the belief and arguments involved in that topic.

If you want to discuss God's existence, go to the thread indicated.

If you can bear the certainty that God is Real, then go to the thread entitled "God is Real."
Click to expand...
Then your OP in this thread is disingenuous.
"All members of DP are invited to join them in this enterprise.

Among the topics to be discussed are:

1. logic and argument
2. morality
3. the existence of God "

No one, including myself, has been able to get you to discuss God's existence in ANY of the threads you've created.

You've even ignored my attempt to give you an easy out. Below is an attempt to clearly state what I feel is most rational about God(s).
Belief in the existence of Gods resides in belief in the definition of the word God, while none of the beliefs can be proven true, leaving said belief to reside solely in faith that said belief(s) will be proven true only after death.

Believers require no proof, therefore a thread title "Proof of God" would appear to be to attract non-believers, and provide evidence supportive of the thread title.

Nuanced wording in no way proves the unprovable.

Basically, it boils down to simply "Either God exists or God does not exist." Neither case can be proven conclusively, therefore some may believe while others may not.

If you cannot accept that to be fact then you need to present some undeniable evidence to the contrary.
 
Individual said:
...No one, including myself, has been able to get you to discuss God's existence in ANY of the threads you've created....
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? Trying to kid the others? Or just kidding yourself? Go to the thread "Proof of God." Go to the thread "God is Real." Cut the bull****.
 
Angel said:
No, that is not "my" strawman, nor do you seem to know what a straw man argument even is -- it's an argument one fabricates and attributes to one's opponent. In this case both your claim and your support and reasoning have been verified many times in this thread. You don't like the result? You have only yourself to blame.
Click to expand...

The only reason there is no discussion is your insistence on making a strawman in order to avoid any discussion.
 
Angel said:
Are you kidding me? Trying to kid the others? Or just kidding yourself? Go to the thread "Proof of God." Go to the thread "God is Real." Cut the bull****.
Click to expand...

OH Angel getting upset because no one is buying the BS he is selling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom