(May 21, 2015 at 5:36 pm)Anima Wrote: Which is why, by mean of philosophy, I have stated that adopting the position of disbelief without empirical evidence negates the existence of one's own "person".

Unsubstantiated.

(May 22, 2015 at 12:56 am)ignoramus Wrote: Welcome matey....
Very happy to have an intelligent theist on board...

Can you do us favour and talk to the 99% of theists here about evolution.
We've been trying for ages but they don't get it.
Also, while you're at it, please don't mention that their god is imaginary ...they start going batshit for some weird reason...

I will be more than happy to do so.  I am sorry they do not get it as it is very simple and there is no conflict unless you subscribe to sola scriptura (which I do not).  I could discuss the big bang theory with them as well and bring it to their attention that it comes from a priest if you would like.

I am sure you recognize why they are up in arms.  When I started out by saying imaginary several stated I could not be taken seriously.  Needless to say I do not actually believe God is imaginary.  But, I am a realist and as such am willing to admit that my belief does not change the reality of god.

---

(May 21, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:My religious affiliation is Catholic

Oh, shit....another one.


Go Blow Pope Frank Out Your Ass.

Indeed another one.  There are a little more than a billion of us 

Which interestingly enough makes for a funny thing.  If utility is determined by what brings about the most good for the most people then it is built upon argumentum ad numerum (argument to the number) in which case the validity of a position is determined by the number of people who hold that position.  So if a more than a billion people say something is correct is it not thereby determined as ethically correct under utilitarianism even if it is not necessarily morally correct?  I am going to have to give that some thought.

Nonetheless.  It is a pleasure to meet you.

Why don't you ask the mods to move your whole current thread to philosophy or religion so we can respond to your assertions properly? You'll have plenty of debate there.

Then you could come back to Introductions and actually introduce yourself. You know, the polite stuff, "Hi, I'm Joe, a Catholic from Timbuktu, with three kids and a dog. I'm here to . . "

(May 22, 2015 at 6:52 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Hello everyone;

I am interested in setting up a debate with someone regarding the need of an imaginary friend for morality.  Please let me know if anyone is interested in participating in this debate in accordance with the rules specified.  Thank you.

Well, now there's an intro thread!
Welcome aboard.
Try to keep these discussions out of the intro forum.

Why do you jump in here wanting to immediately debate?
Take a look at the threads we already have in place, preferably those in the first few pages of the Today's posts, and participate there.... you'll soon be engaged with people.



"Debate", here is AF.org is typically limited to the Debate area and that's a one-on-one thing... we like to hunt in packs!

Ha ha.  I noticed the pack hunting.

I wanted to immediately jump into debate as I have read many of the forums that are present and observed the tendency to ad hominem (both of which I do not need to join a forum or post messages to get in day to day life).

I do apologize for presenting my argument right away, it was done at request.

It was my first day!

---

(May 22, 2015 at 10:39 am)Jenny A Wrote:

Why don't you ask the mods to move your whole current  thread to philosophy or religion so we can respond to your assertions properly?  You'll have plenty of debate there.  

Then you could come back to Introductions and actually introduce yourself.  You know, the polite stuff, "Hi, I'm Joe, a Catholic from Timbuktu, with three kids and a dog.  I'm here to . . "

A great idea!  Would you be so kind as to inform me how I go about doing so?

This is the first time I have ever posted on a forum.  So I am not familiar with the way or means of doing anything.

(May 22, 2015 at 10:32 am)Anima Wrote: So if a more than a billion people say something is correct is it not thereby determined as ethically correct under utilitarianism even if it is not necessarily morally correct?  I am going to have to give that some thought.

How can something be ethically correct but not morally correct? It seems the two are synonymous.

(May 22, 2015 at 6:52 am)pocaracas Wrote: "Debate", here is AF.org is typically limited to the Debate area and that's a one-on-one thing... we like to hunt in packs!

Confirmed
Me likey this pack, best crew I ever run with so far

(May 22, 2015 at 10:40 am)Anima Wrote:

(May 22, 2015 at 10:39 am)Jenny A Wrote:

Why don't you ask the mods to move your whole current  thread to philosophy or religion so we can respond to your assertions properly?  You'll have plenty of debate there.  

Then you could come back to Introductions and actually introduce yourself.  You know, the polite stuff, "Hi, I'm Joe, a Catholic from Timbuktu, with three kids and a dog.  I'm here to . . "

A great idea!  Would you be so kind as to inform me how I go about doing so?

This is the first time I have ever posted on a forum.  So I am not familiar with the way or means of doing anything.

Click the report button.  Ask the mods to move this thread to a more appropriate section of the forum.  They may PM you with questions.  Reply.

While you are waiting for them to respond, come back to the Introductions section and start a new thread just the way you started this one.  Introduce yourself.   A thread introducing yourself is always the politest way to join a forum.  

(May 22, 2015 at 6:40 am)whateverist Wrote: Maybe you should simply ask the question (my bolded) and then try hard to hear and understand the answer.  I personally don't believe in gods because I haven't found it necessary or advantageous to do so.  There is no justification required as I am not advocating non-belief in gods.  I think I understand what it is you find advantageous in having an imaginary friend that is not your self.  

In my psyche's house there are many rooms and not all of them were built by me.  The otherness you find without, I find within.  It isn't a problem for me that you can't understand that not everything that is my self is up to me.  I have no problem with metaphysics, I simply reject as an un-necessary the god construct.  Believe me, when I still used it, I enjoyed it and that was simpler.  Now I'm more tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty.  Or maybe my openness to the truth, what I call faith, is more complete now?

---

It would seem that I would like to discuss your views with you more but I'm no fan of debate as such.  I've already given many responses to some of your points above.  Hopefully no offense was given as none was intended, but it had slipped my mind that this was an introduction thread.  So welcome to the forums.  If you'd like to have a closed discussion on the matters you've brought up I am willing to do so, but assuming you are looking for someone who will espouse the views of an atheist in the manner you conceive of them, I don't think I would be your choice.

I would be more than happy to dialogue with you in a non-debate format.  I like your responses, some of which I have answered, some of which i have not, but would like to.  I am to understand this is a introduction thread and not a debate thread so I will not press things much further.

I bolded a portion of your statement which I find interesting.  If you would be so kind as to expound on that for me when you have the chance.  As I have heard the same thing from many evangelicals and protestants, and am to understand is the main reason why those churches preach the gospel of health.  Aka.  Believe and god give you goodies.

As far as certainty, again I understand that to be more of an evangelical or protestant view of things.  As a realist I admit the reality regardless of my belief.  As a Catholic I accept that it is by mercy and not by deed (mercy is not justice.  Rather mercy is a specific kind of injustice whereby more is given than is deserved).  Ergo I am compelled to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty.  Further more in accordance to common prayer:

"May god grant me the courage to change what I can and the humility to accept what I cannot."

Is to continuously strive to be open and accepting.

Let us set up a private thread to discuss.

---

(May 22, 2015 at 10:48 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(May 22, 2015 at 10:40 am)Anima Wrote: A great idea!  Would you be so kind as to inform me how I go about doing so?

This is the first time I have ever posted on a forum.  So I am not familiar with the way or means of doing anything.

Click the report button.  Ask the mods to move this thread to a more appropriate section of the forum.  They may PM you with questions.  Reply.

While you are waiting for them to respond, come back to the Introductions section and start a new thread just the way you started this one.  Introduce yourself.   A thread introducing yourself is always the politest way to join a forum.  

Thank you very much.  I will do as you have said.

As requested, thread moved to the Philosophy forum.

I have requested a thread on the debate forum for a discussion with you. I'm off to work just now but you might give some thought to what you'd like by way of structure. Thanks.