Dear atheist colleagues here, below is a very good model, according to which all parties whether theists or atheists in a debate or exchange of thoughts on an opposing issue should conduct themselves, as to evince reason, intelligence, logic, learning, and civility of tongue.
Here is an expanded re-writing by yours truly on the preliminary exchange between Russell and Copleston, in their debate on the existence of God.
Original text:
Dear Primordial, you started all right though the formulation of your concept of God is not as succinct as it should be; but woe, you ended up very badly, with a big further loss to your self-worth, even though you aimed to hurt me.
I have to go now, but please think about that, viz., your self-worth, it diminishes as more and more fu** and sh** exude from your mouth.
Here is an expanded re-writing by yours truly on the preliminary exchange between Russell and Copleston, in their debate on the existence of God.
Quote:A Debate on the Existence of God
Bertrand Russell [hereafter R:] and F.C. Copleston [hereafter C:]
C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God."
R: (Refrain) That seems to me to be a very good plan.
C: I presume that we mean a supreme personal Being -- distinct from the world and Creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?
R: Yes, I accept this definition.
C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically.
R: (Refrain) That seems to me to be a very good plan.
C: Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?
R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.
C: Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance?
R: (Refrain) That seems to me to be a very good plan.
C: For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which -- in practice -- is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?
R: Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.
C: Would you agree that if there is no God -- no absolute Being -- there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?
R: No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.
C: Well, suppose we leave the question of good till later, till we come to the moral argument, and I give first a metaphysical argument. I'd like to put the main weight on the metaphysical argument based on Leibniz's argument from "Contingency" and then later we might discuss the moral argument. Suppose I give a brief statement on the metaphysical argument and that then we go on to discuss it?
R: That seems to me to be a very good plan.
Original text:
Quote:A Debate on the Existence of God
Bertrand Russell [hereafter R:] and F.C. Copleston [hereafter C:]
C: As we are going to discuss the existence of God, it might perhaps be as well to come to some provisional agreement as to what we understand by the term "God." I presume that we mean a supreme personal Being -- distinct from the world and Creator of the world. Would you agree -- provisionally at least -- to accept this statement as the meaning of the term "God"?
R: Yes, I accept this definition.
C: Well, my position is the affirmative position that such a Being actually exists, and that His existence can be proved philosophically. Perhaps you would tell me if your position is that of agnosticism or of atheism. I mean, would you say that the non-existence of God can be proved?
R: No, I should not say that: my position is agnostic.
C: Would you agree with me that the problem of God is a problem of great importance? For example, would you agree that if God does not exist, human beings and human history can have no other purpose than the purpose they choose to give themselves, which -- in practice -- is likely to mean the purpose which those impose who have the power to impose it?
R: Roughly speaking, yes, though I should have to place some limitation on your last clause.
C: Would you agree that if there is no God -- no absolute Being -- there can be no absolute values? I mean, would you agree that if there is no absolute good that the relativity of values results?
R: No, I think these questions are logically distinct. Take, for instance, G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, where he maintains that there is a distinction of good and evil, that both of these are definite concepts. But he does not bring in the idea of God to support that contention.
C: Well, suppose we leave the question of good till later, till we come to the moral argument, and I give first a metaphysical argument. I'd like to put the main weight on the metaphysical argument based on Leibniz's argument from "Contingency" and then later we might discuss the moral argument. Suppose I give a brief statement on the metaphysical argument and that then we go on to discuss it?
R: That seems to me to be a very good plan.
Dear Primordial, you started all right though the formulation of your concept of God is not as succinct as it should be; but woe, you ended up very badly, with a big further loss to your self-worth, even though you aimed to hurt me.
Primordial, shooting himself in the head, Wrote:Oh, I almost forgot: Go fuck yourself, you pretentiously arrogant piece of shit.
I have to go now, but please think about that, viz., your self-worth, it diminishes as more and more fu** and sh** exude from your mouth.
