cuchulain

we have only responded to you, care to show otherwise?

i think he'll be back...combative as ever. just a hunch, though.

so...it comes. peace and tolerance but only for those who agree with you. von said NOTHING disrespectful. you wouldn't last if you continued preaching your intolerance, friend.

I don't believe the bible is a good source for new parents on how to treat their children. And faith is certainly not a choice. I don't choose to disbelieve Zeus, Taranus the Thunderer, or Marduk Kurios of the double bladed axe...I simply don't see enough supporting evidence. It's much the same with Christianity. I don't see enough supporting evidence. Many have thought over the years that I specifically target Christians, that I pick on them, that I have some grudge against Christianity. In reality, as I have explained before, I often test the waters so to speak with new Christian members in the hopes of hearing something original or new, some little tid bit of information that will make me reexamine things, something that will shed some light on why people actually believe in this stuff. I read it, and I think it reads a lot like things in the National Inquirer, which also claims to be true. Burning bushes that talk, talking animals, world wide floods where only one specific family was spared...and yet we reproduced SO MUCH FASTER THAN IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE afterward. I just don't grasp how anyone can claim they have a line on the truth and I am wrong, when it appears to me that they are chasing fairy tales. I still hope for some shred, some piece of information I don't currently have. Yeah, people tell me I gotta have faith. But I am not built that way, and if God made everything including me, he made me a doubter...which in turn of course means he made me specifically as an example for those with faith so they can watch me burn for all eternity...which doesn't seem all that loving to me. Ah well...the quest goes on.

agreed. in the manual it states not to disparage others...like catholics.

i am not trying to provoke you. i honestly express my opinion that the topic sounds more suited to a different section, the same as you express your opinion. it just seems to me like you are holding some hostility for my honest opinion, so i asked. its sometimes easy to misinterpret online communications. i didnt say your opinion offended me, merely that claiming an entire branch of Christianity...you know what? not bothering.

i thought it was history you were interested in...this sounds more like preaching and teaching TO ME. do you find my suggestion annoying because I'm an atheist or do you seriously not see this as preaching? keep in mind i hold no hostility and was merely expressing an opinion.

RabbiO is Jewish, to my understanding...please correct me if I am in error, Rabbi. That said, there very well might be Catholic members of this forum. I would find what you posted offensive, and would consider that perhaps what you have to say better posted in the area called preaching rather than philosophy. OF course, I am one of those dreaded atheists...

I would suggest that for some people it might be helpful to draw lines. There are some extremely wishy washy people out there who have real trouble making even simple decisions, and having a strong and authoritative background can certainly help SOME people. I knew a buddies girlfriend once who took thirty minutes, literally thirty minutes, to decide on a choice of two things that were identical. They were the same exact product, although I don't remember what the product was. They were the same brand, color, everything. And it took her 30 minutes.

sorry to have thrown a wrench at it...or maybe it's a good thing to view things from multiple perspectives and possibilities?

only if we are viewing the entire equation...

It's conditional to an extent. If I am told by someone walking by on the street that my brakes are bad, and the car is just sitting parked...I don't put very much faith in their statement. If I am told by my mechanic that my brakes are bad, I look at them myself(I know how to check brakes, btw ) because it's possible they are bad, or it's possible he's trying to get a little more money out of my pocket. I actually went to Sears one time for brake pads, I usually do them myself but it was cold outside and I didn't have a garage and I thought I would let someone else do the job for convenience. They told me they did a free inspection and I needed $800 bucks worth of work. I went to Autozone and bought the pads for 25$ and did it myself, and it did not need new calipers, new rotors and new brake lines. Then you have the level of the claim being made and the "expertise" of the person involved in the claim. As I said, some guy walking by on the street viewing my car parked and not running, and I don't know his credentials but I DO know he hasn't even looked at the brakes? No. I guess the bottom line of all that mess is sometimes you have to examine the evidence for yourself and decide. You may be right, and you may be wrong...but either way the decision and responsibility is yours and nobody else's.

Don't forget that the law must also be enforced. Moving to Georgia, I was somewhat happy that the law about not using cell phones in cars was here as well as in Illinois. Now, after a year of sitting in line to collect my kids from school and watching parents sit and yap or text on the cell phone constantly even in the line at school, and cops do nothing about that...well. It puts the law into perspective a little bit.

i can agree with that, except to add that the possibility exists that a person incapable or unable to prove their claim is not necessarily false, simply not believable.

the book providing answers is fine, unless its just for the sake of having answers. anyone can give AN answer, you know...but it might be wrong.

It was meant for a chuckle. Sometimes we just need to take ourselves less seriously. I had a world religion teacher who insisted that any religion you can't laugh with should be done away with. I tend to think the same thing in philosophy

you aren't trying to, you know...make philosophy, um...practical, right?

asking for proof of a claim(free will) is antagonistic? i'm done. you apparently arent interested in proving your claim. you seem to be antagonistic to me, making an issue of definitions, then telling me you dislike the definition you yourself were using, then making issue of me not using the accurate definition AFTER you cited it as flawed...you're all over the board on this one. but refusing to prove a claim you made and insisting I am being unreasonable? that's a stretch, and i agree...time to be done with your antics.

the best position is the one you decide is right, ability to defend is irrelavent. for me, person a tells me they had a tuna sandwich for lunch and i believe them. its not a bizarre claim and doesnt really affect me either way. if same person insists they were soundly dead and got better after a few days, i want proof. if they don't provide it, i see no reason to believe OR accept i don't know as a valid answer. i am not agnostic about little green men who are really good at hiding living on the moon, either. i dont believe in them, flat out.

A good reason for thinking that no supreme being exists would be a simple lack of solid evidence. Of course, it's subjective as to what each individual believes is solid evidence...Dan believes because the bible is solid evidence. I do not believe because I don't think the bible is solid evidence. A person shouldn't believe in something by default, so they should seek out evidence. If there is no evidence for something(as discussed) then they shouldn't believe.

I have heard it said that the obstacle is the way. I am not certain I fully fathom what that means, certainly not for others. But for myself, it means that the obstacles encountered are opportunities rather than setbacks. Then, I consider that regardless of the path I take, I will one day end up in the same place as all the people around me, and all the people have ended up before me. Dead. I would hazard that one of the major roadblocks we mostly have in common is desire.

Prove fate. OR, conversely, falsify fate. If you cannot falsify fate, or disprove it, OR prove it...then as a concept, you basically say that the entire argument for free will is in reality an argument for fate instead...which logical fallacy is that, where you swap what the argument is really about for something that you CAN defeat? Beyond that, your determination is reliant upon fate. Either fate exists and nobody has free will, or fate does not exist and everything is always free will. In which case, the entire discussion is a moot point. Either we were fated to believe as we do, or we believe it of our own accord...but either way we act the same and still don't know. The basic premise you objected to was that slaves had free will. So, since you asserted that slavery was a choice of free will, I will now ask you for the proof of free will against fate.

Quibbling. See this part, mererdog? Where you decide the part about fate shouldn't be included in the definition, but then later...you tell me I failed to include that same part? Quibbling. Not pooh pooh fallacy...but rather, using the exact same definition YOU YOURSELF GAVE, then getting bogged down in the details that YOU YOURSELF FELT WOULD BE BEST LEFT OUT, as if it were my own fault. Quibbling. Or maybe...trolling.

define quibble.

I'm really trying here...but if you go back and look, that is the EXACT DEFINITION I GAVE AND YOU QUIBBLED OVER! Define circular argument?