Most ironic:
If the individual wishes a cessation of the identification of his fallacies, he would do well to cease relying upon them.
Poisoning the Well with possible argumentum ad judicem, but a definite argumentum ad captandum vulgus.
The individual would do well not to challenge Triadboy, who is armed with a claighmore, when he has merely a damp toothbrush.
"Can't help fools!"
--Sanjuro
--J.D.
If the individual wishes a cessation of the identification of his fallacies, he would do well to cease relying upon them.
Poisoning the Well with possible argumentum ad judicem, but a definite argumentum ad captandum vulgus.
The individual would do well not to challenge Triadboy, who is armed with a claighmore, when he has merely a damp toothbrush.
"Can't help fools!"
--Sanjuro
--J.D.
triadboy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 2,556
csense said:
csense - I was indoctrinated to the gills with Jesus and 'God' as a child (just like everyone else). I remember creating my own prayer to cover my bases when I was a child: "God, please forgive me for all the sins I have committed and all the sins I will commit in the future." I actually said this every week or so for years!
My family moved to Europe and I wound up ignoring religion for years.
Eventually, I became interested in the study of this fascinating idea that infiltrates ALL cultures. What is it about an invisible father creature watching over us that eases people's psyche?
Once one truly examines one's belief using REASON and INVESTIGATION - a tip emerges. It's up to you what you do with the tip - either explain it away or dig deeper.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Come now, csense. You know full well that Doctor X used 'pride' in the sense of "feeling good about a job well done, either by yourself or by others your care about." You used a completely different meaning of 'pride', making it refer to the sin of loving oneself too much. I merely reversed the direction of that change of meaning. So to paraphrase and eliminate the semantics from Doctor X's statement, let me ask then, Are your proud, in the sense of feeling honor at sharing the same values, that you share the Reverend Dew's position on this tragedy? If you do not share his position, then tell us where you differ.csense said:
csense
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 700
Come now, csense. You know full well that Doctor X used 'pride' in the sense of "feeling good about a job well done, either by yourself or by others your care about." You used a completely different meaning of 'pride', making it refer to the sin of loving oneself too much.
We were both using the negative aspects of pride against each other in our brief war of wits.
...let me ask then, Are your proud, in the sense of feeling honor at sharing the same values, that you share the Reverend Dew's position on this tragedy? If you do not share his position, then tell us where you differ
Let me save you the trouble and tell you that my Faith, or any aspect of it, is not open to debate, especially not to someone who's only concern is their own pride.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
So you are unwilling to discuss the nature of your faith with non-believers? I will be quite happy to discuss any aspect of my beliefs with you. Do you fear your faith will not stand up to scrutiny?csense said:
And I think it somewhat presumptuous of you to make assumptions as to what the "only concern" of others is. It sounds very much as if you are setting yourself above me (and others). If that is not pride (the sinful kind), then I don't know what is.
csense
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 700
triadboy said:
I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised by your post.
There are many of us, myself included, who have had similar journeys such as yourself, and without going into particulars, they sometimes lead to two different places, such as you and I.
Your reason and investigation brought you to where you are, and my reason and investigation brought me to where I am.
I think the distinction however, and if I may, is that you see the existence of only one destination, and thereby one path...whereas I see the existence of two destinations and thereby two paths, and they are both there for us to choose.
It's all a matter of will....free will.
I rather used the terms as the individual used them.
Nevertheless, a closed mind really does not contribute to a discussion.
One can have a closed mine, but one can then not complain that no one else shares in the same limited mindset.
--J.D.
Nevertheless, a closed mind really does not contribute to a discussion.
One can have a closed mine, but one can then not complain that no one else shares in the same limited mindset.
--J.D.
csense
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 700
I rather used the terms as the individual used them.
You were the progenitor of the term, and it's tone in our exchange.
Your bullcrap may fly with some of your adoring associates here, but it doesn't impress me.
Nevertheless, a closed mind really does not contribute to a discussion.
One can have a closed mine, but one can then not complain that no one else shares in the same limited mindset.
Oi vay, the ramblings of fools.
You were the progenitor of the term, and it's tone in our exchange.
Your bullcrap may fly with some of your adoring associates here, but it doesn't impress me.
Nevertheless, a closed mind really does not contribute to a discussion.
One can have a closed mine, but one can then not complain that no one else shares in the same limited mindset.
Oi vay, the ramblings of fools.
Apparently, the individual cannot keep track of his own words.
Allow me to assist his memory:
Tragically ironic given his protests above. I can also refer to the previous exchange the individual abandoned. If he wishes a more decorous tone, he would do well to take a more gentlemanly attitude.
Unlike this:
Fortunately, I am only concerned with impressing gentlemen. Should the individual ever rise to such a lofty station I will concern myself with impressing him. The choice, as alway, remains his alone.
Though I would remind The Noble Readership, that this is a Discussion Board. As such it involves . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . discussion.
It does not involve the petulent fallacious pretense thus far spread by this individual. IF he wishes to present a view and defend it properly--rather than having a temper-tantrum whenever someone reveals his errors in reasoning--he may find his reception far more cordial.
No. He is not interested in discussion.
Pride, yes, pride drives him to blather his beliefs considering neither their basis nor the basis of the views of others. He paints himself in the armor of a crussader, charging forth [As opposed to "back?"--Ed.] into the Storm to proclaim his devotion--"Once more into the breach!" [Henry V is not about a crussader.--Ed.] Shh!--as if impacting his cranium against a fortress wall conveys honor.
It looks rather silly, actually.
Of course, he could simply despense with such hubris, leave aside his tatter'd plummage, wooden sword and hobby-horse, and begin discussing the issues as a gentleman should.
The choice, as alway, remains his alone.
--J.D.
Decimating a self-important individual glorifying in blind-prideful ignorance is all well and good; however, it distracts from the more trenchant point:
Some like the Reverend Dew will eagerly attach horrible attributes to a lie--such as a deity who is, ". . . still in charge and he's still in control, . . ." yet perfectly willing to watch children drown--rather than give up the lie.
Worse, such believe they have a direct phone line to such a sociopath. They need the lie to give themselves a feeling of importance.
If I were an unkind man, I would recognize the similarity of such in the individual. Fortunately, I am not.
--J.D.
Some like the Reverend Dew will eagerly attach horrible attributes to a lie--such as a deity who is, ". . . still in charge and he's still in control, . . ." yet perfectly willing to watch children drown--rather than give up the lie.
Worse, such believe they have a direct phone line to such a sociopath. They need the lie to give themselves a feeling of importance.
If I were an unkind man, I would recognize the similarity of such in the individual. Fortunately, I am not.
--J.D.
csense
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 700
triadboy said:
I disagree.
We both must have reasoned away information, otherwise you would not even be talking about reason and methods of inquiry since it would simply be self evident to you, and of which you would be arguing.
I would hazard a guess and say that information as you are portraying it here is really meant to imply facts, or truth if you will, and in which these facts or truth stritcly contradicts a concept of God.
That said, there is only one issue I can think of that fits this profile and that is evolution, which indeed if one does consider this to be truth, then I can understand your position, and given that, you can probably understand mine when I talked of a singular destination, and truth in relation to evolution is a singular destination that I do not subscribe to.
And let me just provide the disclaimer that I have no intention of debating evolution on this board. There are certain subjects I will not engage in anymore and that is one of them. Sorry.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
csense said:
Gosh, how many more topics are there that "you have no intention of debating". One must wonder why you are even here? Is it so you can so you can tell us the "truth" then run and hide in your "no debate" zone?csense said:
Well, csense, these are discussion boards. If you have numerous items that you refuse to discuss, then you cannot blame folks if they mistake your silence for the lack of a strong position.
Maybe you should tell us what topics are open to debate for you. It might be a shorter list.