Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But... I have little doubt we will never agree and continue to see things differently, even on something like this. So how can it be surprising me and MysticPHD will continue to see things differently on the topic of metaphysics.
I think what's surprising is your argumentative reaction to not only attempts (call them poor if you wish) at humor to lighten the tone of discussion.....but the agreements of someone who actually finds much overlap in god-belief with you (Mystic).
You certainly haven't made a convincing argument for your god-claims to a terrible atheist like me. But I don't see the source of your arguments with self-described theists like MysticPhD and Stymie. It's as if you expect them to be atheists questioning you in cross-examination. I don't think you've received that from the atheist's here....let alone the theists...so uncertain as to why you appear (at least to me) to be readying for an argument that it doesn't appear anyone is making.
You certainly haven't made a convincing argument for your god-claims to a terrible atheist like me.
I also haven't made any delicious chocolate cream pie. This is because I never attempted making ANY chocolate cream pie, no more than I attempted any argument for any god-claims. Instead I have stated quite clearly that no arguments for the existence of God have any objective validity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
It's as if you expect them to be atheists questioning you in cross-examination.
So you are here for arguments between theists and atheists. Sorry, but I am not interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinEden99
...so uncertain as to why you appear (at least to me) to be readying for an argument that it doesn't appear anyone is making.
You seem to have a habit of seeing arguments everywhere. But when someone makes a case which you do not intend to disagree with, then there is a very simple solution - you simply agree.
Last edited by mitchellmckain; 07-02-2016 at 06:41 PM..
I think what's surprising is your argumentative reaction to not only attempts (call them poor if you wish) at humor to lighten the tone of discussion.....but the agreements of someone who actually finds much overlap in god-belief with you (Mystic).
You certainly haven't made a convincing argument for your god-claims to a terrible atheist like me. But I don't see the source of your arguments with self-described theists like MysticPhD and Stymie. It's as if you expect them to be atheists questioning you in cross-examination. I don't think you've received that from the atheist's here....let alone the theists...so uncertain as to why you appear (at least to me) to be readying for an argument that it doesn't appear anyone is making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
I also haven't made any delicious chocolate cream pie. This is because I never attempted making ANY chocolate cream pie, no more than I attempted any argument for any god-claims. Instead I have stated quite clearly that no arguments for the existence of God have any objective validity.
So you are here for arguments between theists and atheists. Sorry, but I am not interested.
You seem to have a habit of seeing arguments everywhere. But when someone makes a case which you do not intend to disagree with, then there is a very simple solution - you simply agree.
The tone of mitch's posts does have an aggressive and adversarial character. But I personally have not been engaging in argumentation, just explanation, and seeking the same. The metaphysical differences I see between mitch and my views are inconsequential, IMO, though he may feel differently about it. I was just curious how he rationalized them as a physicist.
The tone of mitch's posts does have an aggressive and adversarial character.
I will own that -- not because it is intentional but because you are certainly not the first to make that observation. But it confuses me, for I seem unable to see this myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
But I personally have not been engaging in argumentation, just explanation, and seeking the same.
I applaud you for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The metaphysical differences I see between mitch and my views are inconsequential, IMO, though he may feel differently about it. I was just curious how he rationalized them as a physicist.
Your thinking they are insequential point to a difference in the philosophical problems which interest and concern us. I have the meticulous rational approach which is certainly an asset in science and this does seem a difference to me on some issues we discussed at least. I think the need to rationalize them as a physicist is one of the things which requires some of those differences. Which is not to say that my way is the only way people can do so but just what is required for me to so -- different choices (premises and concerns). For example John Polkinghorne (Quantum physicist turned Anglican Priest) definitely views many things differently.
I also haven't made any delicious chocolate cream pie. This is because I never attempted making ANY chocolate cream pie, no more than I attempted any argument for any god-claims. Instead I have stated quite clearly that no arguments for the existence of God have any objective validity.
No you certainly haven't made any chocolate cream pie, at least not for me, as I'm still quite hungry.
Quote:
So you are here for arguments between theists and atheists. Sorry, but I am not interested.
You seem to have a habit of seeing arguments everywhere. But when someone makes a case which you do not intend to disagree with, then there is a very simple solution - you simply agree.
Perhaps it's my careless use of argumentative and arguments in the same post, with different intended connotations.
What I meant was argumentative in the sense that you have a clear (to you) explanation of things, and while you're not required to adopt any other explanation, you assert to correct or clarify the explanations of others. There's nothing wrong with that on a forum such as this, but it is effectively debating. And it seemed out of sorts for a rather innocuous joke posted. Confusions occur with text sometimes, as we don't always have the intended tone of the poster, so maybe that's the case here.
My other use of the term arguments was no different than positing a position. Making an argument, or a contention or view, which again need not be viewed as contentious. As in presenting an argument for doubling the sugar you propose to use in your chocolate cream pie.
The tone of mitch's posts does have an aggressive and adversarial character. But I personally have not been engaging in argumentation, just explanation, and seeking the same. The metaphysical differences I see between mitch and my views are inconsequential, IMO, though he may feel differently about it. I was just curious how he rationalized them as a physicist.
Agreed in principle.....I didn't intend to characterize him as argumentative on the whole (which I'll point out isn't necessarily a bad thing if it were true), but more that Stymie's post was rather obviously not a serious contention and it seemed he took it that way. Confusions happen all the time, and I'm not immune to them myself.
Anyway, maybe we move on at this point as I definitely don't find discussion of tone on a forum overly interesting myself.
Ah the intellectually insecure. You gotta love those that exhibit the depth of their insecurity by casting aspersions on the intellect of others.
LOL .
I have heard that imitation is the sincerest from of flattery . Thanks .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
