kate4christ03 wrote:this topic has gone way off course
They do that frequently - nothing remarkable here.
Quote: my initial point was that you didnt need to seem so snide in your assumption that i didnt care to check out the links
I submit again you've taken offense where none was presented. Evident in your first post on this thread was that you had not read the pages at the ther end of those the links. Why it might have been that you did not is irrelevant, obviously, at the time you submitted that post you had not availed yourself of material already offered. Now, had you mentioned experiencing difficulty following the links, perhaps the conversation might have taken a different tack - however, you did not and it did not.
Quote:....i cant see how this came to you, setanta and ossobuco changing the topic to the manner of my discourse of scripture or me being offended by those that disagree with me
Oh, that's easy - it happened when you placed focus on something that existed soley in your perception ... and the digression has continued due the willingness of others here to engage your continuing focus on that which you have imagined.
Quote:...none of you three have given any instances where i am rude to those that disagree with me...or have taken offense to one disagreeing with any statement i have made on scripture....
Straw man. No such instances have been alleged by any of the 3 parties you mention. Speaking only for myself, I'll say I've not characterized you as rude, I have but observed and commented on the evident level of competence with which your proposition has been presented.
Quote:[quote'timber"]It is not you that others attack, it is your proposition and the manner in which you forward that proposition -
timber can you give examples..Who??..for the most part those that i have discussed with havent been rude or suggested that ive been rude with them... there are only a set few that seem to resort to snide comments and personal insults when debating on here ( and i wasnt speaking of only me being party to insult i specificially said "christians")[/quote]
Give examples of what? Your continuing focus on that which was not there? That's just what's been going on over the past 8 or 10 pages of this discussion.
Quote:timber wrote:Demonstrate any instance constituting an attack on your person, as opposed to an attack or your proposition and/or its manner of presentation, and you'll have a point. As it stands presently, your proposition has been incompetently presented
once again i was speaking in general about what ive seen in the past few weeks by those that seem to think christian beliefs are silly
Once again, regardless what you may think you are doing, by your posts you persist in erroneous, afoundational, arrogantly (albeit likely unwitting) egocentric focus, and evade the challenge that you validate your proposition. Allow me to present that challenge once more:
Demonstrate any instance constituting an attack on your person, as opposed to an attack on your proposition and/or its manner of presentation.
While I recognize and acknowledge many in these discussions hold religionist belief - of any flavor - to be proposterous, I submit it is not the believer or the belief that is held to criticism, but the manner in which the beliefs at discussion are presented by many if not most of the proponents of those beliefs. A ridiculous presentation meeting ridicule has met its due.
Quote:.......you have guys that disagree by slinging insults and calling names and ridiculing beliefs..
Insult often is perceived where in fact what was given was objection/rejection and/or challenge. If you wish to be taken seriously, counter objection, overcome rejection, meet and rebut challenge. Make your case. Use logic and evidence to show what you've brought to the trade table. Sell your proposition, don't just keep repeating and rephrasing it in expectation of triumph through shrillness and persistence - that's a practice without positive prospect.
Quote:you have guys that think that all christians should be accountable for the atrocities that a few do......and i have already quoted from setanta in particular as an example
Pot-kettle-black, red herring, straw man, and non sequitur.
Quote:....and sorry but i dont see how name calling and insults and generalizations of any particular group is preparation for an intelligent debate.....
Cool - you want intelligent debate - OK, here are 5 challenges - meet any one of them. To make it easy for you, I'll stipulate to the possibility there may be a god or gods, further stipulate that some god or gods may be supreme, and further yet that some religiospiritual concept may embody the will and teaching of such. Now, have at it - objectively, academically soundly, and forensically validly, per the requirements of serious debate. No need to structure your assay into this venture as formal debate, though if you wish to do so, I'll stipulate to the customary rules of exchange, giving you the affirmative with its consequent opening statement, taking for myself the negative and the consequent first rebuttal. I'll leave to you the number of rounds between opening and conclusion, asking only that you establish that number before initiating debate. Otherwise, I have no problem with open, free-form debate, if that be your preference. Have at it when you're ready; I'm prepared.
Demonstrate objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.
Demonstrate objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that the Abrahamic Mythopaeia be other than a human construct, a cultural artifact with roots in the forgotten antiquity of the Anatolian Plain, the Aryan Plateau, the Fertile Crescent, the Mediterranean Rim, and the Nile Delta, derived through, drawing from and elaborating on the myriad cultural traditions and mythopaeias of those regions, both predating and contemporary with itself.
Demonstrate objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that the Abrahamic Mythopaeia inherrently and incontravertably be superior to any other spiritual mythopaeia past or present.
Demonstrate objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that any one of the 3 primary religions deriving from the Abrahamic Mythopaeia inherrently and incontravertably be superior to its 2 siblings.
Demonstrate objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that whatever religiospiritual worldview you personally profess inherrently and incontravertably be superior to any other religiospiritual worldview.
kate4christ03 wrote:Quote:I am saying, faith announcement is not useful as argument, even with many of the faithful.
i have used scriptural reference to back every point ive made on here so far in reference to religious discussions....that along with a strong faith in Jesus gives me the assurance im correct in my beliefs as a christian.....i dont just throw faith announcements into an argument and say "that is what i believe so oh well" even in my past post to you i stated that.....
Au contrere - the parrotting of scripture or doctrine, regardless pertaing to or derived from which faith or traditition, precisely and by definition constitutes "Faith Announcement" - an invalid form of argument, in that it is circular, deriving from and possessing authority through only itself, absent external validation and independent empirical evidentiary corroboration. It most emphatically is "This is so because what I believe tells me this is so and I believe it so you must too". In particular reference to the Christian subset of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, the Bible - whichever Bible - is the claim, the claim cannot validate itself ... basic forensics.
