OT: Frank and Dave's Philosophical Kebab Emporium

Sonny, you don't have the intellectual capacity for this because quite frankly your are thick! No try very hard to follow the logic.

1 You demand that there is a go/no go gate in terms of agnosticism

2 I say you are wrong because of X,Y, & Z

3 Now it's your turn to destroy my argument (if you can ). It is not for me to provide definitions for you!

As for anger. I am truly beginning to see a huge element of Transference inyour posts when it come to that topic.

 

I disagree and think I'm spot on with my comments, I'm more annoyed with you than touchy but I'll get over it and carry on as usual.

 

Dave, Luv,

You've spat your dummies Wipe your drools off.

 

I just want to declare "I'm out"

 

I'm now quite satisfied that you do have a problem. I enjoy debating and even arguing but not when it is clearly injurious to another's health.

 

That's a good line, a little laborious, but good. Jane Austen?

 

No probs mate.

 

I was taking the piss but hey ho

 

I like it S! Or maybe...is there really a philosophy thread?

 

.

 

I find it interesting the amount of time some aggressively vocal non believers take out of what they claim are finite lives to simply grind and grind at someone who does believe (in whatever position) particularly those that believe in an afterlife for the faithful. The faithful have by your own definition more time on their hands to discuss this stuff than you do.

Maybe that's the logical next discussion. What drives people to be fanatical in their insistence that others should convert to their view?

In terms of the religious I don't mean "spread the word" I mean "we consider you inferior as a human if you don't convert."

Ditto, non believers who insist on deconstructing a person who states they have faith, even if they make no attempt to convert the other. The very statement of faith drives the person to dismantle that belief.

Is it a deep seated doubt in your own position? Or an arrogance stemming from complete confidence in ones own world view? Or is it a more animalistic trait akin to pack mentality and the need for unity to survive?

This applies to political view points as well.

 

I am not a believer in any faith. IMO, faith exists to ease to pain of losing or the risk of losing loved ones including yourself in the latter.

I think we all make our own decisions in life and chose our own paths. We are born and then we die. that's it. therefore, in a round about way, we are each our own god

#chewonthatbadboy

 

You talking to me?

didn't try to convert nobody. Me and Luv we just had (a now buried hatchet) re what it means to be agnostic. And whether believing that "god's existence is both unprovable and undisprovable" is necessary or sufficient or defeating of any of the three: faith, agnoticism, or no faith. (*faith: belief in a supreme being, be it religious or personal)

Luv said (i think) it is necessary & sufficient for agnosticism. I maintained it is not. The only reason it got a bit long was that both of us were replying willingly to one another. It got a bit heated on his side, never on mine. If he didn't want to reply, I wouldn't have smoke-bombed him out by any means.

I dislike people who go out to convert in either direction. On the other hand, defending your side faith/nofaith is not automatically trying to convert. I didn't get to do that (thankfully, as it would have become a slaughterhouse in here). My beef with luv was simply the concept of agnosticism.

 

The exchange may have brought it to mind L, but it wasn't a subtle or as it would have been unsubtle barb at you personally.

It's a common enough occurrence in any large exchange of views on any subject that it made me wonder. I've been guilty of it myself and got to a point long into a debate that the reason I'd started discussing seemed no longer to be present and I asked myself if it was "winning the argument" that now mattered and if so, why?

What is it that drives us to insist on not only believing we are right but must obtain acknowledgement from others that we are right, particularly those least likely to give it based on their opposing views.

I can see validity in all 3 options I presented.

 

Wow frank, do I detect just a hint of satire in there? .

Why are you doing some of us down with this talk of an afterlife? Don't you know that the promise is of Eternal Life. So there really is lots of time

 

In case others would like to use something to help label their position on deities (if that's your intent), I've Taken the Richard Dawkins' scale which was in The God Delusion:

please log in to view this image

I defined myself as number 4 from ~7years-old until my first stint at University. Once there, I steadily worked down the chart and I'm now I'm probably a number 6. Number 7 is too absolutist and unscientific.

Feel free to add your number if you'd like to.

Liking the debates, not so much the insults. No ad hominems please.

 

A very valid and interesting question this "winning the argument". and your options are also quite bang on.

Add a fourth "to save another's life"



Ego is the driver.

Either from a need for validating an immature viewpoint, cutting teeth if you will. (Immature dominant)

Or from dominance expressed as desire to defeat (aggressive if artless) or desire to lead and mentor (patronising if artless). (Mature dominant)

 

Well I'm tired, but I'll leave this discussion (and the one on Sis's thread) at this: Karl Popper suggests that science can never prove an absolute truth, but deductive reasoning can disprove a theory. Theoretically then, the proposal of God on a scientific level is disproved by the lack of evidence, but the absolute proof of the existence of god is beyond scientific reasoning anyway.

Hmmm.

 

CCC,

I've seen that Dawkins scale. I don't like tbh. I undestand it but it's a bit one-dimensional. I could be a 5, and yet would classify myself as a strong atheist as I free myself clear of the need for faith. According to that scale, a strong atheist is a moron, as is the strong theist. Don't agree. The scale mixes reason with faith. Sometimes, a 51% majority in reason sends you to 100% of faith. Ditto for 49% and 0%.

Not to mention that it says nothing about the type of faith. For poll purposes, the scale I proposed was better and more interesting

 

Might reignite tonight's but I'm a 4.

As stated earlier I have seen no evidence conclusive enought to prove either way so can not, hand on heart state either.

A more accurate description is that I would LIKE there to be more than this life (as good and wonderful as I find it), this physical existence for various reasons.

1) I'm adventurous by nature. What would be more of an adventure than another level of existence to explore? Especially as this finite physical life isn't even long enough to explore fully this reality!

2) selfishness, I have loved ones that I know will eventually stop or have stopped existing in this present form. It would be comforting that it wasn't the end.

3)I like gaining knowledge, it annoys me that things are beyond my comprehension..how dare they whomever they might not be!

4) loneliness. Despite having plenty of friends and family, the contemplation of the atheist view makes me feel lonely and a little cold. The vastness and my insignificance in it engenders that I suppose. I've noted a fair few physicists romanticize about energy transference and atoms to suspect deep down they find the outcome of their atheist beliefs (when held) quite cold too.

Of course some of that presupposes that any possible next existence is a happy one....