(September 25, 2015 at 11:25 am)Crossless1 Wrote: At best, you've come up with tentative reasons to be a deist. But you're not a deist. My interest is in how you bridge the chasm between a deist god and your Christian god...I have addressed the differences between general and special revelation elsewhere and am happy to do so again on the appropriate threads. At this time, however, I am confining myself to the topic at hand.
Now that would be a challenge worth exploring, in my opinion. But you'd rather keep it at a level where you can argue the abstract positions of the Schoolmen without sullying yourself with anything that has to do directly with what your faith actually entails.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 17, 2024, 11:41 am
Thread Rating:
|
Apologetics open challenge
|
  (September 25, 2015 at 2:45 pm)robvalue Wrote: Wow. This is a level of rudeness which surprised me, even given what I’m used to reading. Apparently I’m not allowed a few days break, and I’m making empty boasts. Rob, this is the internet and not the real world. Being rude sometimes is part of the deal. I don't say that in defense of Chad or even myself, but it's easier to let lose if you aren't talking face to face. ![[Image: Bumper+Sticker+-+Asheville+-+Praise+Dog3.JPG]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-d-3rfdI7nG0%2FTerwtFyFXoI%2FAAAAAAAACak%2F7kFSmHeVrng%2Fs320%2FBumper%2BSticker%2B-%2BAsheville%2B-%2BPraise%2BDog3.JPG)
 (September 25, 2015 at 2:28 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I can't remember with whom I had the discussion, but very soon after arriving on this forum I had a long and intense "discussion" (quotation marks indicate irony, here, since they just kept repeating themselves instead of addressing my counter-arguments) with someone about why presuming life exists because the conditions were set up before hand to make life exists, rather than life as we know it being a natural consequence of random (or perhaps not random if, as some cosmologists speculate, this is simply the way particles must interact) settings that comprise the universe. It leaked heavily over from cosmology into abiogenesis, which was fine by me since that's more my turf, but at no point was the person willing to acknowledge that life could even possibly have formed naturally, by "random" (not really random, since it's how the particles always interact, which they didn't realize is a fundamental conclusion of their original argument that the universe must have been designed for life to exist, even as they thought it was magically Created). I originally discussed Aquinas with friends in Catholic seminary, back when I was in college, since I come from a heavily Catholic part of the country, but they were honest enough to admit that the Five Ways were not proof but supposition with which they simply felt comfortable assuming. When it's presented as "you can't refute this!", right off the bat, it tells me that you're not really willing to have the same sort of respectful conversation about it, acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, but have already made up your mind in a way that is impervious to reasoning... so why reason with you? The haughty, insulting tone I do find annoying, yes, but as you point out that's often par for the course with an internet forum, and I don't truly hold that as a reason not to have discussions, simply that I identify it as an emotional reaction that tells me it's not worth talking about with someone who has such an irrational outlook on something. My advice is that you do the same, with atheists who behave that way. I would.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. (September 25, 2015 at 3:21 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: they were honest enough to admit that the Five Ways were not proof but supposition with which they simply felt comfortable assuming. When it's presented as "you can't refute this!", right off the bat, it tells me that you're not really willing to have the same sort of respectful conversation about it, acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, but have already made up your mind in a way that is impervious to reasoning... so why reason with you?Your friends did not find the 5W as compelling as me, the late Mortimer J. Adler, Edward Fesser and many others believe(d). You mistake my great confidence in the strength of an argument with ideological commitment. I'm open being proven wrong, but it seems that right now everyone is more concerned about my personality. In the OP robvalue claimed that he would reveal the logical fallacies of any ontological god claim. So my counter challenge of in your words "you can't refute this!" was entirely justified. RE: Apologetics open challenge
September 25, 2015 at 5:19 pm
(This post was last modified: September 25, 2015 at 5:20 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Just to recap:
RV: Please post any arguments about religion or a general God that you think are valid, and I will analyse them. CW: I return your challenge with another: a formal debate of the 5 Ways of Thomas Aquinas. RV: Well, it's chock full of logical fallacies (the 5 ways), and I can point them all out if you want...What else is there to say?... If you don't want to address these points here, and think this is really worth a debate, I'll consider it. CW: I think a formal debate would best serve to illustrate the robust nature of Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways…if you decline I will not consider it a sign of weakness or lack of courage, merely a recognition that we all have personal lives...I invite you to select one of the Five Ways and present your best objection to it now. RV: I'm taking a break from heavy going topics for a few days as I get all obsessed with them sometimes. I'll be back to read the replies here in a while and reply to people. CW: As for now, my counter-challenge to either formally debate the 5W has been tacitly declined and my offer to defend any of the 5W selected by the skeptics has gone unanswered. Will any skeptics step up to the plate? RS Meme: “I saw your last post…would you like some cheese to go with your whine.” CW: I have issued my counter-challenge at least three times now. You skeptical cock-lepers have only offered a cute meme… If anyone is serious about fulfilling the empty boast of the OP then you can PM me. RS: Don't be sad, Chad. I just don't take you very seriously. RV: I said I'm taking a break, as above. But as you're so incredibly rude, I've lost all interest in interacting with you.
What you fail to notice, Chad, is that this guy, going by many aliases, posted stuff we get every week and already discussed ad nauseum and to top it off, simply copy pasted as if there was tomorrow.
So, there's a difference between just being a dishonest preaching prick and someone being out for a discussion. The mere fact that I'm even adressing this, should give you a hint.
Please spell it out for me. I feel a little clueless.
 RE: Apologetics open challenge
September 26, 2015 at 1:38 am
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2015 at 1:45 am by robvalue.)
(September 25, 2015 at 3:07 pm)abaris Wrote:(September 25, 2015 at 2:45 pm)robvalue Wrote: Wow. This is a level of rudeness which surprised me, even given what I’m used to reading. Apparently I’m not allowed a few days break, and I’m making empty boasts. Yes, that's very true. Personally I always try to not say anything that I wouldn't say to someone's face. I just wanted to show that the accusations Chad was throwing my way were unfounded. He also happened (not for the first time) to make it clear he has zero respect for me. That's fine, he can continue to do so from my block list. I'm not suggesting he be censored or anything, just that I'm not wasting my time when I have plenty of people who do respect me. I'll probably finish the job on Aquaman's theory or whatever it's called anyhow in due course. Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum  (September 25, 2015 at 10:25 am)Stimbo Wrote:Stim, you taught me the hard way that a person's nose can act like a 2 gang espresso maker! Thanks!(September 25, 2015 at 10:07 am)lkingpinl Wrote: I see what you did there.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear. RE: Apologetics open challenge
September 26, 2015 at 3:55 am
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2015 at 3:56 am by robvalue.)
Just to explain, I come here partly to relax and enjoy myself. I don't enjoy talking to people who won't offer me a minimum level of respect.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)
