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.
It is a discussion and debate forum. So I repeat: If someone espouses a view here then I am perfectly entitled to ask them what the back up for that view is. If they can not or will not answer that then so be it - I can not force them. But I am not about to stop asking because you want to have a rant about it.
I can question what I like. I have that right. You are not about to remove it from me. Or as they say in the venacular "Try stopping me".
You know what, you're right, you can question whatever you want and we can ignore you as much as we want, but when you start harassing certain individuals then you are breaking the TOS and will definitely get the attention of the moderators and it would seem that you enjoy harassing a certain individual for whatever reason you may have but I would suggest that you be very careful in who your harassing. Just my opinion....
Lying cannot exist when the claims made are backed by an extensive and complete explanation and rationale for them, period. Mere claims that a "theory fails to deliver" can be proffered by total morons and idiots without any basis or credibility, Arequipa. The ONLY way such claims can be credible is for them to counter with specific arguments addressing the theories main features. No mere poster on a public forum who has NOT provided any comprehensive rationale for their OWN position is going to be given the power to deny someone else's well-presented and complete rationale by mere assertion and ridicule.
I agree. Whether claims and theories fail to deliver can only come out of discussion. The results of the discussion ought not to depend on the judgement of one person whether for the claim or against it.
Sound logic is of course required. An attempt to shore up one's own unsubstantiated theory by demanding that the OTHER side prove some theory of theirs as a counter is not sound logic, as you ought to know, but, like most theists, you have a system of logic all of your own.
You have repeatedly been told that it is ALL in my Synthesis and rather than address the Synthesis point by point
If it is then I am not finding it. So if there is something in it you think that answers the direct question I just asked you on THIS thread then by all means quote it and I will address it.
In the meantime it appears to me your tactic here is to get out of having to give evidence by directing me to somewhere where there is none, then repeating over and over "Look again" each time I return and say "No, still none there".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptsum
Just my opinion....
Yes. It is. You are not a moderator. If you think any post breaks the TOS on the site then simply report it. There is a very useful report feature which appears on EVERY post on the forum which you can click at any time.
In the mean time however if someone espouses a view I will ask them what their back up for the view is. There is no rule against this - as it in fact what a discussion and debate forum is FOR - and quite frankly there is nothing you can do to stop me.
However I must repeat: If someone wants to refuse to evidence their claims then I am perfectly ok with that. What I am NOT ok with is people lying that they have answered things they have not, or have given evidence where they have not. I will call that out when it happens and again: You cant stop me.
If it is then I am not finding it. So if there is something in it you think that answers the direct question I just asked you on THIS thread then by all means quote it and I will address it.
In the meantime it appears to me your tactic here is to get out of having to give evidence by directing me to somewhere where there is none, then repeating over and over "Look again" each time I return and say "No, still none there".
Yes. It is. You are not a moderator. If you think any post breaks the TOS on the site then simply report it. There is a very useful report feature which appears on EVERY post on the forum which you can click at any time.
In the mean time however if someone espouses a view I will ask them what their back up for the view is. There is no rule against this - as it in fact what a discussion and debate forum is FOR - and quite frankly there is nothing you can do to stop me.
However I must repeat: If someone wants to refuse to evidence their claims then I am perfectly ok with that. What I am NOT ok with is people lying that they have answered things they have not, or have given evidence where they have not. I will call that out when it happens and again: You cant stop me.
You know, no two people see the same thing exactly the same way, that's what makes everybody different from each other. Now Mystic may feel that he has answered your questions and given all of the information that he feels is necessary and if that doesn't suit you.... Well that's your problem and nobody elses, so why don't you let it go, because all you have accomplished is absolutely nothing, you not going to get anything more so accepted for what it is and move on, otherwise it would seem that you are harassing people. And no I'm not a moderator now but I used to be one of this particular section of city data, so I do know what I'm talking about.
The Christian Bible has numerous quotes from Jesus stating that he is "The Son of God and Messiah".
The Quran and Islam says that Jesus was only a Prophet and when asked by Allah directly if he (Jesus) made such claims, Jesus denied it.
And, Judism and the Jews basically say that the Jesus was an imposter and lunatic deserving of death on the cross; And that the true Messiah has not come to Earth to redeem the children of Israel.
Which account do you believe? Is this entire story about Jesus simply a myth or story from the ancient past? If that is true, then Christianity would probably qualify as worlds greatest fabrication.
Agree or Disagree?
All religions are fabrications.
They are mental prisons, population control tools....churches need people to be sheeple and to not ask questions that they do not want/can not to answer.
While "lying" might be too strong a word, other users have hit the nail on the head that it is often a very dangerous thing to pretend one has more information than one actually does. I would not go so far as to label pretending to know something is true when you really don't as lying. It certainly feels like it should be included under the entire umbrella category of generally being deceptive however.
Leading people down a path of believing things there is no good reason to believe can be dangerous. Regardless of whether one is doing so as an outright lie or as a guess. Even if you genuinely think what you are claiming is true it is still incumbent upon you to check that there are some genuine reasons you can give people for arguing it is true. This is not what we are seeing here on this thread however. Quite the opposite in fact as it appears some people get irate that people even have what they see as the gall to ask.
I think we can be forgiven for thinking that this refusal to answer any questions on the matter might be symptomatic of the theists in question being as unsure what the evidence for their own position is as we are. People as a rule of thumb generally do tend to get defensive and even aggressive when they realize their own precious positions can not be supported.
I agree. Whether claims and theories fail to deliver can only come out of discussion. The results of the discussion ought not to depend on the judgement of one person whether for the claim or against it.
Sound logic is of course required. An attempt to shore up one's own unsubstantiated theory by demanding that the OTHER side prove some theory of theirs as a counter is not sound logic, as you ought to know, but, like most theists, you have a system of logic all of your own.
There have been NO substantive rebuttals or refutations of my Synthesis that could possibly be used as the basis for the robotically repeated assertions that are made by the likes of monumentus. His blanket dismissals are backed by NOTHING and reflect NOTHING but his empty and completely unsubstantiated bald-faced opinions, period. They are the equivalent of "nyah, nyah, na, nyah, nyah . . . you have not backed up your claims." You have never done any better, Arequipa . . . but you have at least acknowledged that it is beyond your current grasp to do so.
If it is then I am not finding it. So if there is something in it you think that answers the direct question I just asked you on THIS thread then by all means quote it and I will address it.In the meantime it appears to me your tactic here is to get out of having to give evidence by directing me to somewhere where there is none, then repeating over and over "Look again" each time I return and say "No, still none there".
If you haven't the intellectual acumen to grasp the material presented sufficiently to see how it supports my assertions after five extremely long and detailed posts detailing them . . . there is no possibility whatsoever that any kind of quote will penetrate. Note the use of the subjunctive "IF" . . . before you launch into your other tiresome and repeated mantra about insults.
There have been NO substantive rebuttals or refutations of my Synthesis that could possibly be used as the basis for the robotically repeated assertions that are made by the likes of monumentus. His blanket dismissals are backed by NOTHING and reflect NOTHING but his empty and completely unsubstantiated bald-faced opinions, period. They are the equivalent of "nyah, nyah, na, nyah, nyah . . . you have not backed up your claims." You have never done any better, Arequipa . . . but you have at least acknowledged that it is beyond your current grasp to do so.
You have probably forgotten that I read it when you first posted it and I thought it was ingenious and well worked out and the best attempt I had seen to provide a scientific theory for Sortagod. I also pointed out that it was purely speculative and shot through with possiblys, perhapses and it might bes. Since then you have consistently tried to insist that it is fact through personal conviction, reversing the burden of proof and gap for god argument re consciousness, mystical experiences and the murkier areas of cosmology.
I don't want to go on with this, but the failure of your hypothesis to deliver has been pointed up but consistently ignored by you. Succinctly, your approach is to say that you are obviously right and anyone who doesn't agree is arrogant and ignorant.
Now can you stop hi-jacking every damn' thread to peddle your pet theory and let us get back to the topic?
You have probably forgotten that I read it when you first posted it…
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
…
Now can you stop hi-jacking every damn' thread to peddle your pet theory and let us get back to the topic?
Excuse the off topic!
Where can I locate and read that famous theory of my colleague –in hi-jacking damn’ threads – Mystic?
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.
