Poll: Which fundie was the craziest?
voxxpopulisuxx
LouisIX
mikemac
Kaesekopf
Archer
[Show Results]
 
Real debate with fundies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2013, 08:03 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
Well Louis, hopefully we'll be able to discuss our views more freely over on SD. Much as it pains me to admit it, there are people on TTA who would rather insult a theist than discuss their views with them in a civil matter (naming no names). Sad

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
17-10-2013, 08:04 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
Bucky. We cannot fault him for banning people on his forum if we do not act in a way that allows for any conversation we disagree with.

I want him to tell me why he believes homosexuals shouldn't get the same civil rights as anyone else.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 08:25 PM (This post was last modified: 17-10-2013 08:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 08:04 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Bucky. We cannot fault him for banning people on his forum if we do not act in a way that allows for any conversation we disagree with.

I want him to tell me why he believes homosexuals shouldn't get the same civil rights as anyone else.

He's not being banned here, so your analogy is false. He is free to say anything he wants. I expect him to defend, rationally, his cult. He can put me on ignore if he doesn't like what I say. I feel perfectly free to say anything about anyone who says his god creates humans with "free will" but out of the other side of their mouths, deny it.

You actually think (or anyone, "not naming any names" you're going to have a rational "civil" conversation, with someone who says :
"False religions need no liberty. Part of our problems stem from the fact that we've convinced ourselves that any man has a right to worship any god he wants. Only the Church has a right to freedom. We may tolerate other religions, but no man has a God-given right to be a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Muslim.".

Good luck with that.
He says ONLY HIS church has the right to freedom. And we're supposed to treat that dangerous insanity with civility ?
Think about it ? How exactly do you think that would play out, on a practical level.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 08:29 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 06:32 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 06:15 PM)Chesterbelloc Wrote:  If there is a thread discussing atheism on Suscipe Domine, please direct me to the one with a poll attached to it meant to deride the members of this forum. And find me a thread here were someone from SD pretends to want to have a sincere dialogue, while snickering about it at another forum. Thanks in advance.

What goes on in another forum has nothing to do with your forum. And here you are, and welcome to defend your bigoted views amongst the heathens. My question about a thread on your forum is still waiting for an answer.

What question would that be, sir(or ma'am)? And what exact thread are you talking about? No one from SD came over here to start a ruckus under false pretenses. The person guilty of that came from here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 06:30 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  One person snickered means that ALL snickered, eh?

Same logic as all supporters of equality of homosexuality are homosexual. Drama queen, table of one? Your table is ready

Looks to me like most of you were having a good time about it here, even having a poll to make fun of people. So "most snickered", not all. Fair enough?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 08:33 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 07:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 06:54 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  That's not true, but even if it were, that doesn't mean a whole lot. Catholics are not Protestants. We do not believe revelation comes through Scripture alone (sola scriptura).

This isn't about human rights. Entertain for a moment that, if there were an immutable God, human rights are secondary to His nature and the nature of humans as creatures made in the imago Dei.

What is most frustrating is that people don't understand why Catholics believe what they believe. They assume that we're just like the idiot Westboro Baptists, who do not like "the gays" and thus we tell everyone to do what we want them to do. This could not be further from the truth.

Most (but certainly not all) atheists I meet are not actually willing to keep an open mind to the idea that Catholicism is not the simplistic straw man that it is made out to be. I'd be happy with people just giving me the ability to tell them what my beliefs are, and why I hold them. Unfortunately, it is nearly always the other way around, and this thread has been no different.

You can skip the Latin nonsense. It makes it no more true, if you say it in Latin, than English. I know you people LOVE to try to intimidate people with that crap, but it's worthless. It's the same garbage, in Latin, and every language. Can you say it in archaic Hebrew ? You said humans do not have the right to believe what their (in your world) "god given brains" have led them to believe. If someone does not buy into your presuppositions, you actually think you can IMPOSE your beliefs on them, which is what your post implied. Is your god SO stupid, it wouldn't know that someone who honestly WAS NOT GIVEN THE *GIFT* (VIRTUE) of "faith" wouldn't know the difference, if they *said* they believed, but didn't ?

"No one shall come to me UNLESS the Father draw him", "For many are called, but few are chosen". Are you more Catholic than the pope ?

Explain how an "immutable god" *does* anything, (or even "exists"), or (decides to) "send his son", or "creates" something. Something "immutable" is either not a "being" or is dead. In the English language, the word "immutable" has a specific meaning. It clearly cannot be applied to your deity, in light of your other statements about it.

BTW, I know about your religion than you do. My grandfather was a Vatican diplomat. I saw the crap from the inside
All gods are made in the image of man. If horses has gods, their gods would be horses.
The question you have not examined, in your cult, is a corollary of Euthyrhro's dilemma : If your deity has a "nature", then it "doesn't" have another nature. In your world, from all eternity, as long as your deity existed, and HAD his "nature" it was defined and "existed" in Reality, as PART of all of Reality. A eternal deity which has a specific "nature" had to, from all eternity NOT have what was NOT in in's nature. Yet you people say your deity "created" all things. A deity which, of necessity, is required by definition to participate in only part of Reality, is not, and cannot be the creator of (all of ) Reality. You also cannot say anything about your deity which does not invoke a temporal dimension, (time). Beings that "exist" require (space)time. Everything you people say about your deity assumes and requires time.

I don't even know where to begin.

1) In a handful of exchanges you've determined that you know more about Catholicism than I do? You know nothing about my background or what I do with my life, yet you present this as truth without any evidence. Do you always jump to conclusions, especially ones which allow you to claim that you know more than whomever you're speaking with?

Your grandfather being a "Vatican insider" (whatever that means) means nothing. Was he a theologian? What if my grandfather was an atheist? Can I claim greater knowledge? And isn't this the logical fallacy of arguing from authority?

2) I'm not using Latin to intimidate people, but once again, you assume the worst of the person that you're speaking with and attack their character instead of what they say.

I used Latin because it's the language of the Church and thus the language of theology. Many of the theological terms we're using are better understood in Latin and are often referred to in Latin.

3) Where did I ever say that my beliefs should be imposed upon others? I think that sodomy is immoral and should be made illegal, but I did not say that everyone must believe that it is sinful. You don't have to think that speeding is unjust, but you do have to follow the speed limit. Before you get all wound up, I'm not attempting to compare speeding with sodomy. I'm merely making a distinction between imposition of an action and imposition of a belief. The law already does a lot of imposing on our actions.

4) Catholics believe that God is immutable and yet can act because he is pure act, pure being, or pure esse. Here is where a little break down into Thomistic metaphysics is helpful, especially the distinction between potency and act, but I'm sure you already know all about that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 08:38 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
Their "voxxpopulisuxx"
"Hero Member"
*****
Posts: 2156
If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.
Religion: duhhhhh

Re: Gay Persecution of Christians: The Latest Evidence
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2013, 07:43:26 PM »
Quote from: Crimson Flyboy on October 12, 2013, 06:53:33 PM


Quote from: voxxpopulisuxx on October 12, 2013, 06:22:53 PM

Never use the term gay. This is war!


What term shall we use?

sodomite...pervert...sick degenerates....effeminate snakes....queers...fags....hmmmm I think im up to where the rules allow....but be sure I have many choice descriptors of much more accuracy than "gay"


He forgot one.

Priest

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 08:49 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 08:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You actually think (or anyone, "not naming any names" you're going to have a rational "civil" conversation, with someone who says :
"False religions need no liberty. Part of our problems stem from the fact that we've convinced ourselves that any man has a right to worship any god he wants. Only the Church has a right to freedom. We may tolerate other religions, but no man has a God-given right to be a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Muslim.".

Good luck with that.
He says ONLY HIS church has the right to freedom. And we're supposed to treat that dangerous insanity with civility ?
Think about it ? How exactly do you think that would play out, on a practical level.

Erm, well out of the two of you one is trying to be civil and present his points calmly, and one is spewing ad hominems left, right, and centre and is acting so calmly they could pass for someone on tripping out on meth.

Care to take a guess which is which?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 08:33 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 07:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You can skip the Latin nonsense. It makes it no more true, if you say it in Latin, than English. I know you people LOVE to try to intimidate people with that crap, but it's worthless. It's the same garbage, in Latin, and every language. Can you say it in archaic Hebrew ? You said humans do not have the right to believe what their (in your world) "god given brains" have led them to believe. If someone does not buy into your presuppositions, you actually think you can IMPOSE your beliefs on them, which is what your post implied. Is your god SO stupid, it wouldn't know that someone who honestly WAS NOT GIVEN THE *GIFT* (VIRTUE) of "faith" wouldn't know the difference, if they *said* they believed, but didn't ?

"No one shall come to me UNLESS the Father draw him", "For many are called, but few are chosen". Are you more Catholic than the pope ?

Explain how an "immutable god" *does* anything, (or even "exists"), or (decides to) "send his son", or "creates" something. Something "immutable" is either not a "being" or is dead. In the English language, the word "immutable" has a specific meaning. It clearly cannot be applied to your deity, in light of your other statements about it.

BTW, I know about your religion than you do. My grandfather was a Vatican diplomat. I saw the crap from the inside
All gods are made in the image of man. If horses has gods, their gods would be horses.
The question you have not examined, in your cult, is a corollary of Euthyrhro's dilemma : If your deity has a "nature", then it "doesn't" have another nature. In your world, from all eternity, as long as your deity existed, and HAD his "nature" it was defined and "existed" in Reality, as PART of all of Reality. A eternal deity which has a specific "nature" had to, from all eternity NOT have what was NOT in in's nature. Yet you people say your deity "created" all things. A deity which, of necessity, is required by definition to participate in only part of Reality, is not, and cannot be the creator of (all of ) Reality. You also cannot say anything about your deity which does not invoke a temporal dimension, (time). Beings that "exist" require (space)time. Everything you people say about your deity assumes and requires time.

I don't even know where to begin.

1) In a handful of exchanges you've determined that you know more about Catholicism than I do? You know nothing about my background or what I do with my life, yet you present this as truth without any evidence. Do you always jump to conclusions, especially ones which allow you to claim that you know more than whomever you're speaking with?

Your grandfather being a "Vatican insider" (whatever that means) means nothing. Was he a theologian? What if my grandfather was an atheist? Can I claim greater knowledge? And isn't this the logical fallacy of arguing from authority?

2) I'm not using Latin to intimidate people, but once again, you assume the worst of the person that you're speaking with and attack their character instead of what they say.

I used Latin because it's the language of the Church and thus the language of theology. Many of the theological terms we're using are better understood in Latin and are often referred to in Latin.

3) Where did I ever say that my beliefs should be imposed upon others? I think that sodomy is immoral and should be made illegal, but I did not say that everyone must believe that it is sinful. You don't have to think that speeding is unjust, but you do have to follow the speed limit. Before you get all wound up, I'm not attempting to compare speeding with sodomy. I'm merely making a distinction between imposition of an action and imposition of a belief. The law already does a lot of imposing on our actions.

4) Catholics believe that God is immutable and yet can act because he is pure act, pure being, or pure esse. Here is where a little break down into Thomistic metaphysics is helpful, especially the distinction between potency and act, but I'm sure you already know all about that.

Then why didn't you write the ENTIRE post in Latin ? Nice try. You used it, because you thought it gave "authority" your nonsense. In fact the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, says all languages are of EQUAL value. There is nowhere that says Latin is "the language of the church".

You can play with the lingustics, and twist them anyway you like. Saying you believe in something (even while Special Pleading the terminology) is worthless nonsense.
Thomistic metaphysics is also worthless. You have answered NONE of the objections.
There is no such thing as "pure act". Actions REQUIRE time, by definition, or the word "act" has no linguistic value.

You said men were not free to hold what they believed, but only your cult members were free. Nice try at evasion, and deflection. Fail.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 08:54 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 08:29 PM)Chesterbelloc Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 06:32 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  What goes on in another forum has nothing to do with your forum. And here you are, and welcome to defend your bigoted views amongst the heathens. My question about a thread on your forum is still waiting for an answer.

What question would that be, sir(or ma'am)? And what exact thread are you talking about? No one from SD came over here to start a ruckus under false pretenses. The person guilty of that came from here.

I've only been involved with this thread for a few posts, and I certainly haven't gone over to the thread in your forum to even have a gander. I think I have a pretty good idea of what went down there from past experience and due to the posts in this thread thus far.

The question I asked was for any of you catholics from your forum to direct me to a thread (if one exists, I'm only assuming there might be one. I could be wrong) in which you discuss atheists so that a fair comparison between our two forums could be made. We have been called out, I'd like to have a fair playing field.

I wouldn't mind having an open, polite, respectful discussion about why it is that you believe you have the right to bigotry. I don't see it ending well (I think that's to be expected), but I think you do deserve the right to say what you have to say and be listened to. Respectfully. At least for as long as we can manage it.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: