Netanyahu: Iran a threat to the world.

[Sliver]

I think he is saying that if you were a widely read as you say your are, then you would recognise the points being highlighted and the irony inherent in them.

Since when did I say I was widely read ? I'm not the most erudite person here and I'm happy to admit it, but when I'm forced to post the pictures of the books I read because the people debating don't believe me, that's just absurd and sad.

I do recognise certain points, but I don't have to agree with them. I'm an individual just like you Castiel. I have no gods, I make my own mind up. Even people like Hithens, Dawkins, Hawking, Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Harris, Dillahunty, etc. etc. do not convince me with everything they say. I disagree with everyone about something.

 

[Castiel]

How is not participating rational ? Discourse is essential, so to remove yourself from it is to remain in the dark. I don't find debates in general to be monotonous, but I do find peoples style of debate monotonous at times. Hence your were on my ignore list for a long time. I took you off recently because I decided that ignoring you was not progressive but regressive. I'm not exactly thrilled having to thrash out every last minutia of every post with you, explaining constantly every last phrase in exquisite detail etc. But I'll do it any way because ignoring you was a mistake on my behalf.

Well, that fair enough. My only complaint is the reliance of videos in lieu of a persons own opinion, even if the video is illustrative of that opinion. If I wanted to argue with say Richard Dawkins, I would argue with Richard Dawkins...Or Hitch, if he was still with us.

If I am long winded sometimes, it is because often I am trying to get across complex points to a broad audience without drowning them in technical and scientific terminology. Also, with some of the subject matter, the nuance and minutiae is actually very important in assessing the practical and real world consequences of a particular argument or position. Often it is simply to illustrate consequences of a particular train of thought that the person may not have considered.

I'm sorry if you find it monotonous, but I do attempt to be as concise as I can, but I am more used to debating (conversing) within an academic specialist audience, which as I am sure you can appreciate, would be rather superfluous in GD.

I have had some debates here with a few Scholars and Priests for example that have been very technical, perhaps you might find them interesting. They should be archived somewhere..one was on Gog and Magog with various Muslims and another revolved around how I felt that the Pauline Scripture was misinterpreted by Catholicism that I held with several Catholic Priests, one of whom was in the Vatican at the time and has become a good friend of mine even though we fundamentally disagree on certain positions of doctrine inherent in his religion. That is what rational people can do, they can disagree and discuss those disagreements without recourse to mockery or ridicule.

Since when did I say I was widely read ? I'm not the most erudite person here and I'm happy to admit it, but when I'm forced to post the pictures of the books I read because the people debating don't believe me, that's just absurd and sad.

I do recognise certain points, but I don't have to agree with them. I'm an individual just like you Castiel. I have no gods, I make my own mind up. Even people like Hithens, Dawkins, Hawking, Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Feynman, Harris, Dillahunty, etc. etc. do not convince me with everything I say. I disagree with everyone about something.

The impression was that you have read or listened to pretty much everything Christpher Hitchens has put out there. That is the impression you gave, if that is not true then your clarification was all that was necessary.

 

[Sliver]

Well, that fair enough. My only complaint is the reliance of videos in lieu of a persons own opinion, even if the video is illustrative of that opinion. If I wanted to argue with say Richard Dawkins, I would argue with Richard Dawkins...Or Hitch, if he was still with us.

If I am long winded sometimes, it is because often I am trying to get across complex points to a broad audience without drowning them in technical and scientific terminology. Also, with some of the subject matter, the nuance and minutiae is actually very important in assessing the practical and real world consequences of a particular argument or position.

I'm sorry if you find it monotonous, but I do attempt to be as concise as I can, but I am more used to debating (conversing) within an academic specialist audience, which as I am sure you can appreciate, would be rather superfluous in GD.

I have had some debates here with a few Scholars and Priests for example that have been very technical, perhaps you might find them interesting. They should be archived somewhere..one was on Gog and Magog with various Muslims and another revolved around how I felt that the Pauline Scripture was misinterpreted by Catholicism that I held with several Catholic Priests, one of whom was in the Vatican at the ime and has become as good friend of mine.

Fair enough. I guess talking to me is a step down then from all those academics.

The impression was that you have read or listened to pretty much everything Christpher Hitchens has put out there. That is the impression you gave, if that is not true then your clarification was all that was necessary.

I don't know the sum total of Hitchens output. I know it was a lot and some of it was out there before I was old enough to read it and understand it. He has been an inspirational figure for me though and I have heard a hell of a lot of what he has to say. I'd guess I've read and seen more of him than the average person. But Hitchens is just one of many people I read up on. He's not my god or my hero, he's just someone I admire and have learned from.

 

[Castiel]

Fair enough. I guess talking to me is a step down then from all those academics.

Not at all...I never find myself thinking that the basic principles of my arguments have any more value than any others..often other arguments do not have the grounding scientifically that I can bring to an argument, but that doesn't mean that that other opposite opinion doesn't have value.

I don't know the sum total of Hitchens output. I know it was a lot and some of it was out there before I was old enough to read it and understand it. He has been an inspirational figure for me though and I have heard a hell of a lot of what he has to say. I'd guess I've read and seen more of him than the average person. But Hitchens is just one of many people I read up on. He's not my god or my hero, he's just someone I admire and have learned from.

My advice to anyone is to read a broad spectrum of opinion. I'm not sure that Hitchens is someone to aspire to, but he certainly is someone to listen to...just be aware that in some areas, particularly his understanding of religion, is somewhat limited. He knew this and, being who he was, he didn't care because the points he was making were broad. He was also very contradicting, again something he knew..and I see you are reading his memoir so you will see that for yourself in his own words.

 

[Sliver]

My advice to anyone is to read a broad spectrum of opinion. I'm not sure that Hitchens is someone to aspire to, but he certainly is someone to listen to...just be aware that in some areas, particularly his understanding of religion, is somewhat limited. He knew this and, being who he was, he didn't care because the points he was making were broad. He was also very contradicting, again something he knew..and I see you are reading his memoir so you will see that for yourself in his own words.

I think that's good advice. I am sceptical by nature so I'm aware not to take anyone's word for granted. As I've said before, I have disagreements with Hitchens already. Enjoying his memoir so far though.

 

[Castiel]

I think that's good advice. I am sceptical by nature so I'm aware not to take anyone's word for granted. As I've said before, I have disagreements with Hitchens already. Enjoying his memoir so far though.

I am probably the most sceptical person you are likely to meet...which is why I probably over-question everything.

Scepticism is the foundation of rationalism.

 

[jmc007]

I believe the Dylan quote is "Don't criticise what you can't understand." One up on the enigma that is Castiel. jk Bro.

I find it saddening so many on here without a faith in God.

It gives me so much comfort. I used to see faith for the weak and something they needed to believe because they had a crappy life, i.e. disabled, poor or infirm. e.t.c.

I was in a very dark place and Jesus rescued me.

He is real and very present help in times of trouble.

 

[Sliver]

He is real and very present help in times of trouble.

Really ? Why do you say that ? Evidence please, how does he help you ?

 

[Amnesia]

I find it saddening so many on here without a faith in God.


He is real and very present help in times of trouble.

Except he hasn't been present in times of trouble for all those who have died.

 

[Castiel]

I believe the Dylan quote is "Don't criticise what you can't understand." One up on the enigma that is Castiel. jk Bro.

Its called paraphrasis.

I find it saddening so many on here without a faith in God.

It gives me so much comfort. I used to see faith for the weak and something they needed to believe because they had a crappy life, i.e. disabled, poor or infirm. e.t.c.

I was in a very dark place and Jesus rescued me.

He is real and very present help in times of trouble.

Why would it sadden you, surely it is all part of God's Plan. Besides the point that your God might not be how others envisage God.

Sometimes faith manifests in different ways, not always needing the concept of salvation by God. What might seem real to you, may n ot be real to someone else...does that mean God doesn't exist or doesn't love them as you believe he does you? Of course not, unless your God is not the benevolent God as promised in scripture. So really faith isn't required, as Mother Abigail said when told by Nick Andros he didn't beelive in God..."God bless ya, Nick! But it don't matter! He believes in you."...

Surely that kind of God is a benevolent God, why would such a God require submission from a creation to which he gifted Freewill?

 

[Xordium]

Really ? Why do you say that ? Evidence please, how does he help you ?

You stated above that you have read a lot of science greats and yet what you are asking for is evidence that would fit a logical positivism paradigm for something that can not be directly measured in such a fashion. Even Comte recognised the problems with this and acknowledged that did not mean it was worthless, meaningless or impossible.

Except he hasn't been present in times of trouble for all those who have died.

Same to you - there is no way you can logically say this. Your only argument will be to demean the experience of others and to try and seek a justification for evidence that could never possibly be found through the methods you would be willing to accept.

And:

I find it saddening so many on here without a faith in God.

Why? Why do we need to have faith in a god to have a good and fulfilling life. You can take away a god from me and I will still endeavour to lead a good life - according to your dogma if we take your god from you then you are nothing but sin. I know I am happy to be in my position over yours knowing whatever good and bad things I do I am answerable for me and me only.

 

[Danthus]

I believe the Dylan quote is "Don't criticise what you can't understand." One up on the enigma that is Castiel. jk Bro.

I find it saddening so many on here without a faith in God.

It gives me so much comfort. I used to see faith for the weak and something they needed to believe because they had a crappy life, i.e. disabled, poor or infirm. e.t.c.

I was in a very dark place and Jesus rescued me.

He is real and very present help in times of trouble.

lol

 

[Sliver]

You stated above that you have read a lot of science greats and yet what you are asking for is evidence that would fit a logical positivism paradigm for something that can not be directly measured in such a fashion. Even Comte recognised the problems with this and acknowledged that did not mean it was worthless, meaningless or impossible.

He made a claim, I'm just asking for evidence to justify it. You have a problem with that ?

 

[jmc007]

Its called paraphrasis.



Why would it sadden you, surely it is all part of God's Plan. Besides the point that your God might not be how others envisage God.

Sometimes faith manifests in different ways, not always needing the concept of salvation by God.

Yeah, I was thinking after I wrote that, that it should not sadden me, as if someone had tried to preach to me thirty years ago, I would not have had any of it.


Thank you Xordium.

 

[Xordium]

He made a claim, I'm just asking for evidence to justify it. You have a problem with that ?

I have no problem. You however seem to have a problem in that you don't actually understand what you are reading.

 

[Sliver]

I have no problem. You however seem to have a problem in that you don't actually understand what you are reading.

How so ? He made a claim. I asked him to justify that claim. You came in un-announced and declared what you declared, which is derailing my conversation with him. Again, what is your problem with me asking for justification when someone makes a claim ?

 

[Castiel]

He made a claim, I'm just asking for evidence to justify it. You have a problem with that ?

His evidence would likely be subjective, emotional and within his own experience. It might not be valid to you, it is likely untestable by any metric you accept..however that doesn't make it any less real to him and I know people like to say that Faith is irrational and based on nothing.=, but for most people is isn't...they have a rational approach to their faith, they may not be able to adequately elucidate that to the unbeliever or sceptic but that doesn't make it irrational or without evidence.

Faith is not always blind.

 

[Xordium]

How so ? He made a claim. I asked him to justify that claim. You came in un-announced and declared what you declared, which is derailing my conversation with him. Again, what is your problem with me asking for justification when someone makes a claim ?

Once again I don't have a problem the very fact you've replied like that rather than challenged the point I made just backs up (like earlier) you don't really understand what you are reading.

Maybe that is why you link all those videos because you don't actually understand things well enough to articulate the point in context and therefore have to rely on others.

Let me clarify that post really simply for you:

You will never accept whatever evidence he can provide because the evidence he will provide will be instantly dismissed by you as meaningless. You'll then retort his sort of evidence is nothing of the sort and yet you will happily accept such evidence in other aspects of your life.

 

[Amnesia]

Same to you - there is no way you can logically say this. Your only argument will be to demean the experience of others and to try and seek a justification for evidence that could never possibly be found through the methods you would be willing to accept.

ok so give your explanation of how people who have died...been murdered or raped and murdered or died from accidental bombings to died of cancer have been helped.
you can use other examples to, like how people who were in financial trouble and went onto losing their homes and then died of starvation or some other horrible death, how these people were helped.

i was questioning these people who were in trouble and God was meant to have helped....how were they helped when they end up dead.

seems a case of if you are in trouble and you so happen to get out if it then it was Gods doing but if not then bla bla bla some excuse.


you can throw is some ISIS examples too, like the pilot who got burned alive and the gay guy who got threw off a roof..how they were helped in their time of trouble.

 

[Sliver]

His evidence would likely be subjective, emotional and within his own experience. It might not be valid to you, it is likely untestable by any metric you accept..however that doesn't make it any less real to him and I know people like to say that Faith is irrational and based on nothing.=, but for most people is isn't...they have a rational approach to their faith, they may not be able to adequately elucidate that to the unbeliever or sceptic but that doesn't make it irrational or without evidence.

Faith is not always blind.

Yeah thanks. Can you and Xordium just leave me alone for like 5 minutes so that I can talk to him one on one ? My question is to him and I want to hear his answer. Once we are done then fire away.