Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:Come on then Mustard. Even a below-average intelligence philosophy AS student could have googled up and pasted a chunk of the Critique of Pure Reason dealing with the subject by now...

Good job that I'm not a below-average intelligence philosophy student then...
Y'see, what an well-above-average intelligence forum user could have done (and indeed did) in my situation, was wind you up for a bit on a topic I have no real interest in, before going down the pub with some friends, leaving you to stew in your own self-righteous juices.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Won't a self-proclaimed Jedi-master of philosophy such as you

Feel free to point out where I called myself that. Or have you made (another) school-boy error and imagined that legal-philosophy (jurisprudence) and theological philosophy are somehow one and the same? Oh, what's that? That's exactly what you did, you say? Well I guess that's probably because you are in fact a schoolboy and have no real knowledge of either area. Poor show, as ever.

Once again Nappy l'Rash, It appears that I am victorious...

CoffeeCream wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:I think your getting to focused on the win again.

I agree. Before I became a Christian I was asking questions because I couldn't reason out certain things. The humility of people like Nate, Daddy1Gringo & CrazyAnglican attracted me more towards a reasonable view of who God is than trying to win an argument. Of course I've witnessed arrogance on the part of atheists here in the forums. I don't see how imitating that kind of behavior is supposed to attract people to a theist/Christian worldview. A Christian is supposed to be different than the world, Napoleon. Just tone it down a little. In the end, who really cares if an atheist doesn't accept our points? It doesn't change us one bit and we don't need them to accept us.

Exactly...who cares? "It's an internet forum, what do you expect?" Can't we have some fun here without having to remain excessively formal and adopt strictly parliamentary language? Listen, I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not really trying to convert anyone, so much as get a kick out of a debate on an internet forum. That's the reason we're here, isn't it?

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Come on then Mustard. Even a below-average intelligence philosophy AS student could have googled up and pasted a chunk of the Critique of Pure Reason dealing with the subject by now...

Good job that I'm not a below-average intelligence philosophy student then...
Y'see, what an well-above-average intelligence forum user could have done (and indeed did) in my situation, was wind you up for a bit on a topic I have no real interest in, before going down the pub with some friends, leaving you to stew in your own self-righteous juices.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Won't a self-proclaimed Jedi-master of philosophy such as you

Feel free to point out where I called myself that. Or have you made (another) school-boy error and imagined that legal-philosophy (jurisprudence) and theological philosophy are somehow one and the same? Oh, what's that? That's exactly what you did, you say? Well I guess that's probably because you are in fact a schoolboy and have no real knowledge of either area. Poor show, as ever.

Once again Nappy l'Rash, It appears that I am victorious...

Right, so you in fact have admitted to having absolutely 0 understanding of Ontology and just decided to pollute my thread so you could get a cheap thrill?

Well, feel free to try and construe that as a victory, but I think even an expert at lying would have difficulty in doing that...

Napoleon Ier wrote:Right, so you in fact have admitted to having absolutely 0 understanding of Ontology and just decided to pollute my thread so you could get a cheap thrill?

Actually, learning to read would probably help you sound like less of a tool.

You should try it sometime...

(In other news: Isn't it awesome that this isn't increasing our postcount?)

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Right, so you in fact have admitted to having absolutely 0 understanding of Ontology and just decided to pollute my thread so you could get a cheap thrill?

Actually, learning to read would probably help you sound like less of a tool.

You should try it sometime...

(In other news: Isn't it awesome that this isn't increasing our postcount?)

Right now I think I might just post some lawyer jokes...but that's maybe a little cheap. Oh well, I guess that's what revising Biology GCSE modules about growth in organisms entitled "Size Matters" does to a man.

(In other news: I guess though that this means we're enjoying the banter causa bantering, in a far more pure, and unadulterated way...)

Napoleon Ier wrote:

silvanricky wrote:Napoleon, I can't understand why you would list sound and valid as options. What is the difference? You either think it's a good argument or it's stupid. Why didn't you offer different levels of disagreement in your poll?

It's a philosophical distinction. "Valid" means you think it makes the right conclusions from its premises, but for it to be "sound", it must have premises which are correct.

My advice would be to actually give that info on the 1st page. I doubt that everyone who voted knew that distinction.

You know, for someone who is berating Mustard for "polluting my thread", you're certainly doing a very good job of ignoring actual on-topic posts, Napoleon...

OK. Well, we'd gotten to the point at which, more or less, you'd recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith?

No, but seriously, I can respect that. A Priori argumentation such as that is indeed extremely uncomforting if you plan to base such an important belief on it...but it does somewhat throw light on your ridiculous claim that "there is absolutely no evidence for God", of such an intelectual puerility I associate more with the likes of unthinking sheep like comic_rentboy, the Ted Haggards of Atheism if you will, than a man of a certain degree of experience in the exercise of critical faculty such as yourself...

Napoleon Ier wrote:Listen, I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not really trying to convert anyone, so much as get a kick out of a debate on an internet forum. That's the reason we're here, isn't it?

Makes sense then. If you're all having fun with the debate then carry on.

CoffeeCream wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Listen, I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not really trying to convert anyone, so much as get a kick out of a debate on an internet forum. That's the reason we're here, isn't it?

Makes sense then. If you're all having fun with the debate then carry on.

Exactly...I mean,this forum...it's just an elaborate extension of the games of risk we play, right? Only you put forward arguments isntead of roll dice, make alliances in clans, and rack your brains (or in some cases search wikipedia) for re-inforcements...

Napoleon Ier wrote:OK. Well, we'd gotten to the point at which, more or less, you'd recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith?

No, but seriously, I can respect that. A Priori argumentation such as that is indeed extremely uncomforting if you plan to base such an important belief on it...but it does somewhat throw light on your ridiculous claim that "there is absolutely no evidence for God", of such an intelectual puerility I associate more with the likes of unthinking sheep like comic_rentboy, the Ted Haggards of Atheism if you will, than a man of a certain degree of experience in the exercise of critical faculty such as yourself...

Unthinking sheep !
A religious flock you might say

Neutrino wrote:You know, for someone who is berating Mustard for "polluting my thread", you're certainly doing a very good job of ignoring actual on-topic posts, Napoleon...

You can't really blame him, he's still just a kid.

He'll mature with age no-doubt...

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Neutrino wrote:You know, for someone who is berating Mustard for "polluting my thread", you're certainly doing a very good job of ignoring actual on-topic posts, Napoleon...

You can't really blame him, he's still just a kid.

He'll mature with age no-doubt...

More to the point a Virgin, hopefully a couple of good shags will sort him out

Napoleon Ier wrote:OK. Well, we'd gotten to the point at which, more or less, you'd recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith?

Actually, my athiesm stems more from the fact that (the Christian) God is a sadistic vengeful psychopath (see "Do Athiests celebrate Christmas" thread) than any real sense of disbelief (after all, it's 50/50)

Napoleon Ier wrote:No, but seriously, I can respect that. A Priori argumentation such as that is indeed extremely uncomforting if you plan to base such an important belief on it...but it does somewhat throw light on your ridiculous claim that "there is absolutely no evidence for God", of such an intelectual puerility I associate more with the likes of unthinking sheep like comic_rentboy, the Ted Haggards of Atheism if you will, than a man of a certain degree of experience in the exercise of critical faculty such as yourself...

Despite all your assertions to the contrary, I have yet to actually encounter your evidence. It would be quite advantageous to your point if you finally deemed it the appropriate time to reveal your fabled evidence...

Anyways, you kinda failed to actually respond to my assertion in any real manner. My point wasn't that I feel "uncomfortable" basing arguments on ontological arguments, but that the ontological arguments themselves are completely invalid.

Neutrino wrote:Actually, my athiesm stems more from the fact that (the Christian) God is a sadistic vengeful psychopath

Tell me, How many people did Jesus kill? Tell me now or shut the hell up.

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Tell me, How many people did Jesus kill? Tell me now or shut the hell up.

I was actually referring to the "Ha ha, you're completely screwed for being born in a non-Christian country" and "You get to burn in hell for all eternity for exercising an ability that I gave you" elements more than any actual killing sprees.

Neutrino wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Tell me, How many people did Jesus kill? Tell me now or shut the hell up.

I was actually referring to the "Ha ha, you're completely screwed for being born in a non-Christian country" and "You get to burn in hell for all eternity for exercising an ability that I gave you" elements more than any actual killing sprees.

I have pointed out to Jenos several times, and of course been ignored, that his particular faith is largely a product of circumstance. If he had found God while living in another part of the World then the chances are that he would be following another religion, there are Muslims and Hindus out there just like him but of course arguing from a completely different perspective. They are all convinced they are right, all can produce 'evidence ' to support their claim and it is these fundamentalist minorities who have caused such conflict over the years.

Neutrino wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:OK. Well, we'd gotten to the point at which, more or less, you'd recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith?

Actually, my athiesm stems more from the fact that (the Christian) God is a sadistic vengeful psychopath (see "Do Athiests celebrate Christmas" thread) than any real sense of disbelief (after all, it's 50/50)

Napoleon Ier wrote:No, but seriously, I can respect that. A Priori argumentation such as that is indeed extremely uncomforting if you plan to base such an important belief on it...but it does somewhat throw light on your ridiculous claim that "there is absolutely no evidence for God", of such an intelectual puerility I associate more with the likes of unthinking sheep like comic_rentboy, the Ted Haggards of Atheism if you will, than a man of a certain degree of experience in the exercise of critical faculty such as yourself...

Despite all your assertions to the contrary, I have yet to actually encounter your evidence. It would be quite advantageous to your point if you finally deemed it the appropriate time to reveal your fabled evidence...

Anyways, you kinda failed to actually respond to my assertion in any real manner. My point wasn't that I feel "uncomfortable" basing arguments on ontological arguments, but that the ontological arguments themselves are completely invalid.

They are invalid? No, you're objection to Ontological proofs was that "humanity can't imagine infinity", making it unsound, not invalid. However as we've pointed out, the idea behind the ontological argument is not one that requires us to imagine the source of all perfection but rather relies on the fact that such a concept exists.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
They are invalid? No, you're objection to Ontological proofs was that "humanity can't imagine infinity", making it unsound, not invalid. However as we've pointed out, the idea behind the ontological argument is not one that requires us to imagine the source of all perfection but rather relies on the fact that such a concept exists.

While it is a reason, it is not the main reason. See Page 10, a little more than half way down.

comic boy wrote:

Neutrino wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:
Tell me, How many people did Jesus kill? Tell me now or shut the hell up.

I was actually referring to the "Ha ha, you're completely screwed for being born in a non-Christian country" and "You get to burn in hell for all eternity for exercising an ability that I gave you" elements more than any actual killing sprees.

I have pointed out to Jenos several times, and of course been ignored, that his particular faith is largely a product of circumstance. If he had found God while living in another part of the World then the chances are that he would be following another religion, there are Muslims and Hindus out there just like him but of course arguing from a completely different perspective. They are all convinced they are right, all can produce 'evidence ' to support their claim and it is these fundamentalist minorities who have caused such conflict over the years.

If I'd been born in Europe, I'd have remained an Atheist-fallen-into-Nihilism and we would not be having this discussion. If I was born in Latin America, likely I was raised Catholic, fell out of that into the Atheist-fallen-into-Nihilism then propably came to know Christ via a Protestant Missionary. Same goes for Africa, Asia or even the Middle East, but the latter would have earned me a disowning by my parents at the least and surely death at the hands of a gang encouraged by a mulllah to commit violence to those who stray (this is proscribed by the Koran).

So, no, I would not be any measurable bit different, comic relief.

So, I take it Freedom of Will is the root of all evil?

I assume that was an April fool post

Jenos Ridan wrote:
If I'd been born in Europe, I'd have remained an Atheist-fallen-into-Nihilism and we would not be having this discussion. If I was born in Latin America, likely I was raised Catholic, fell out of that into the Atheist-fallen-into-Nihilism then propably came to know Christ via a Protestant Missionary. Same goes for Africa, Asia or even the Middle East, but the latter would have earned me a disowning by my parents at the least and surely death at the hands of a gang encouraged by a mulllah to commit violence to those who stray (this is proscribed by the Koran).

So, no, I would not be any measurable bit different, comic relief.

So, I take it Freedom of Will is the root of all evil?

There is one major flaw in your reasoning. I'll give you three guesses to work out what it is.

You are not destined to become Protestant. Your Protestantism is the result of a long chain of events. Take any of them out and you become non-Protestant. Therefore, all your examples where you become Protestant no-matter-what fail.

Neutrino wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
They are invalid? No, you're objection to Ontological proofs was that "humanity can't imagine infinity", making it unsound, not invalid. However as we've pointed out, the idea behind the ontological argument is not one that requires us to imagine the source of all perfection but rather relies on the fact that such a concept exists.

While it is a reason, it is not the main reason. See Page 10, a little more than half way down.

Yes...and as I said, you'd therefore recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith? The idea that humanity needs to imagine infinity, is just wrong, which I tried to explain a little more tactfullu earlier on.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Neutrino wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:They are invalid? No, you're objection to Ontological proofs was that "humanity can't imagine infinity", making it unsound, not invalid. However as we've pointed out, the idea behind the ontological argument is not one that requires us to imagine the source of all perfection but rather relies on the fact that such a concept exists.

While it is a reason, it is not the main reason. See Page 10, a little more than half way down.

Yes...and as I said, you'd therefore recognised that the Ontological argument is sound but that of course, it can't persuade you because of its genrally tenuous appearance. Meaning that your atheism is based on a gut feeling....could we go so far as to say...Faith? The idea that humanity needs to imagine infinity, is just wrong, which I tried to explain a little more tactfullu earlier on.

Exactly which ontological argument are you talking about anyway? There are some very different ones and none is uncontested.

Neutrino wrote:You are not destined to become Protestant. Your Protestantism is the result of a long chain of events. Take any of them out and you become non-Protestant. Therefore, all your examples where you become Protestant no-matter-what fail.

He probably feels that he was destined to become protestant after becoming an athiest or something, which brings up the question of just how much "free will" is supposedly prescribed to us. After all, there are only two ways to look at it:

A: Your religion was chosen by a decision at some point in your life largely due to various social conditions you were raised into, or

B: Your religion was predestined, whether scientifically or divinely.

Assuming choice A is true, the heavy majority of non-Christians are condemned to burn for reasons beyond their control. Assuming choice B is true, all non-Christians are for reasons beyond their control. Tough call there.