Ask a Complicated Ecumenical Existentialist Universalist Christian Stuff

[Jack Jackson]

I don't think that in ten pages you've figured out yet that I am completely uninterested in your debate tactics. All you have to do is clarify what you mean when you use the term "God" and does the term refer to a specific god, Yahweh.

Until then, you're just blathering. Page after page...

He's not even trying to actually debate ideas either. He just wants to show everyone how flashy he can be with simple debate tricks. He's pretty much trying to play with the idea of 'being a good debater'.

Funny thing though, real debaters (not the kiddy ones who mess around with double or triple adjectives to make a mountain out of a molehill) get to the point of what they are talking about and disregard the fluff; because they are actually there to debate.

Real debates happen when people actually have something to discuss, when ideas are actually put forward, where silly illusory tricks are either dealt with or disregarded as a whole. The point of a real debate is to challenge an idea or a concept and put it to the test. To have a discussion where both people learn and grow. That's real debating.

The fake kind is where you're there to prove something out of ego; 'oh look how superior I am'. Did you know there are actual debate sites where people don't focus on ideas, but rather flowery ways of discussing almost nothing?

I once ran across this debate site where people would debate in haiku. There were some 'real' people there who would go into long detail about what they knew, or thought they knew; I actually learned a lot from just watching. And Then there were the posers, trying to act as something they weren't. They weren't serious; they were messing around and trying to look big.

I don't mind discussing things Ad nauseum (in detail or length) so long as the other person is serious about an idea. I don't mind explaining things repeatedly if the other person legitimate doesn't understand the point. I do mind my time being wasted for no real purpose at all; other than for someone's self-gratification.

I'll also add something an old friend gave to me:

Philosophy of competition

When you compete, do you compete with your opponent, or against your opponent?

Competition is a discussion between opponents. Each side shares ideas with their opponent, to find what works better. The language is the battle, and the goal is to work out together which ways to best climb a mountain. Competing with your opponent, the goal is to climb the mountain, and stand tall together with your opponent. Competing against your opponent, the goal is to cut the rope and drag everyone down...just so that you can stand taller than your opponent. One way, everyone gains. One way, everyone loses. One is concerned with empowering themselves. One is concerned with power over others. One seeks to better themselves. One seeks instant gratification. This is why most players never improve, or even learn the basics, even after years of playing. The only thing that grows is their ego. And he who fights with ego, fights with shame and one arm behind his back.

 

[Received]

He's not even trying to actually debate ideas either. He just wants to show everyone how flashy he can be with simple debate tricks. He's pretty much trying to play with the idea of 'being a good debater'.

Any evidence for this?

BTW, haven't forgotten about your original questions.

 

[Received]

I don't think that in ten pages you've figured out yet that I am completely uninterested in your debate tactics. All you have to do is clarify what you mean when you use the term "God" and does the term refer to a specific god, Yahweh.

Until then, you're just blathering. Page after page...

Completely uninterested in my debate tactics, yet you're attempting to participate in them.

Blathering, yet you're taking part in the blathering by blathering back.

And the appeal to defining God: Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do appreciate you toning it down a bit. I can promise you, BL, that if you only showed the decency to not use such inflammatory language like at 109 onwards, this problem wouldn't be here. My guess is such language is conditional on your assumption that I have ulterior motives. Except I don't, and didn't when I made the original question that spawned this disagreement.

If you really want an answer to the question, as a way of mutually washing our hands of one another, and only on the condition that you keep superfluous terms out of the conversation (e.g., "blathering"; and yes, I used the same terms in a few places only as a response to your initial uncalled for rhetoric), start your own thread on the subject and I'd be happy to reply.

K?

 

[BL2KTN]

Completely uninterested in my debate tactics, yet you're attempting to participate in them.

Blathering, yet you're taking part in the blathering by blathering back.

One of us has spent a dozen pages asking for a single set of questions be answered in order to clarify a term (in a thread by you devoted to asking you questions). One of us has spent a dozen pages trying to get out of answering questions in a thread he created for asking him questions.

You figure out which one is blathering.

And the appeal to defining God: Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How is it begging the question to ask you to clarify what you mean when you use a term?

I do appreciate you toning it down a bit. I can promise you, BL, that if you only showed the decency to not use such inflammatory language like at 109 onwards, this problem wouldn't be here. My guess is such language is conditional on your assumption that I have ulterior motives. Except I don't, and didn't when I made the original question that spawned this disagreement.

The problem is you refusing to clarify a term. The problem has existed from the first response you gave. There is no other problem. The motive for this problem you continue to create is obfuscation.

If you really want an answer to the question, as a way of mutually washing our hands of one another, and only on the condition that you keep superfluous terms out of the conversation (e.g., "blathering"; and yes, I used the same terms in a few places only as a response to your initial uncalled for rhetoric), start your own thread on the subject and I'd be happy to reply.

So to ask you a question in a thread you created for asking you questions, I need to create a new thread? Let me refer you to a very complicated word you have been perplexed with on a regular basis:

No.

 

[Received]

One of us has spent a dozen pages asking for a single set of questions be answered in order to clarify a term (in a thread by you devoted to asking you questions). One of us has spent a dozen pages trying to get out of answering questions in a thread he created for asking him questions.

You figure out which one is blathering.

You, because all the stuff above is a legitimate complaint only if you fulfill the conditions as summarized in 217. Think.

How is it begging the question to ask you to clarify what you mean when you use a term?

Because asking for the term assumes, yet again, that you're right on the issue of whether or not "no" really counted as no, as discussed previously and summarized in 217.

The problem is you refusing to clarify a term. The problem has existed from the first response you gave. There is no other problem. The motive for this problem you continue to create is obfuscation.

And this is precisely what you're yet to prove, and therefore question begging.

This will continue to be the case no matter how much you respond.

So to ask you a question in a thread you created for asking you questions, I need to create a new thread? Let me refer you to a very complicated word you have been perplexed with on a regular basis:

No.

You don't need to do anything, and the fact that you interpret it as a "need" tells me even more about what it's like on your side.

Again, these issues will continue to go back and forth. You can either 1) continue to make the same repeated points, which so far have been begging the question or at the very least haven't addressed the content summarized in post 217, which will result you continuing to not get the response you want, or 2) follow through with 217 or start your own thread. There's nobody telling you what you need to do. The options above, however, are reality. Your choice. And I will say that I'll continue responding but probably spread them out over every few days, which is good for me for a few reasons: 1) I seriously enjoy having discussions like this because they sharpen my emotional intelligence, and 2) you continuing to respond superfluously will only keep this thread bumping to the top, which will help me get people to look at it and ask me questions.

And I'm dead serious: I'm both amused and helped in general by continuing a response like this. My dopamine receptors are getting a workout. Thanks, seriously. My guess is you'll continue responding because you're obstinate like that, probably because this emotionally registers as a real competition to you (it's not for me, because all I'm asking for is what I've asked for for over ten pages), and after a matter of weeks eventually throw up your hands after leaving a few sharp superfluous rhetorical comments appearing to absolve you of the logical necessities as summarized, again, in 217 and then walk out the door.

Jack, haven't forgotten about you.

 

[BL2KTN]

You, because all the stuff above is a legitimate complaint only if you fulfill the conditions as summarized in 217. Think.

It took you around 20 posts before you came up with conditions for asking you questions in a thread you created for asking you questions. And since myself and others have explained why those conditions are bogus parlor tricks to avoid answering the questions (at a time when no such conditions existed), I'm going to keep on asking them.

Because asking for the term assumes, yet again, that you're right on the issue of whether or not "no" really counted as no, as discussed previously and summarized in 217.

No. You were asked to clarify the term. You did not. You asked if my questions meant something. I replied no and asked for you answer the questions in order to clarify the term.

If you won't even tell us what God is when you say you believe in him/her/it, then this is all just a big joke and your positions are cotton candy. You might as well go around saying you believe in Hollacent. It too is a completely undefined term that thus means nothing.

And this is precisely what you're yet to prove, and therefore question begging.

This will continue to be the case no matter how much you respond.

If you won't define what you mean when you use the term "God", then I can promise you, nobody of any intellect takes you seriously. It's buffoonery.

You don't need to do anything, and the fact that you interpret it as a "need" tells me even more about what it's like on your side.

Like pulling teeth if you'd like to know.

Again, these issues will continue to go back and forth. You can either 1) continue to make the same repeated points, which so far have been begging the question or at the very least haven't addressed the content summarized in post 217, which will result you continuing to not get the response you want, or 2) follow through with 217 or start your own thread. There's nobody telling you what you need to do. The options above, however, are reality. Your choice. And I will say that I'll continue responding but probably spread them out over every few days, which is good for me for a few reasons: 1) I seriously enjoy having discussions like this because they sharpen my emotional intelligence, and 2) you continuing to respond superfluously will only keep this thread bumping to the top, which will help me get people to look at it and ask me questions.

Blah blah blah.

When you use the term "God" what do you mean? Does it explicitly refer to the god Yahweh?

And I'm dead serious: I'm both amused and helped in general by continuing a response like this. My dopamine receptors are getting a workout. Thanks, seriously. My guess is you'll continue responding because you're obstinate like that, probably because this emotionally registers as a real competition to you (it's not for me, because all I'm asking for is what I've asked for for over ten pages), and after a matter of weeks eventually throw up your hands after leaving a few sharp superfluous rhetorical comments appearing to absolve you of the logical necessities as summarized, again, in 217 and then walk out the door.

I don't even read these anymore. I look at the first few sentences, see where it's going, decide you don't deserve to waste my time with a monologue, quote them, and reply with the same thing:

What does the term "God" mean when you use it? Does it specifically refer to the god Yahweh?

Jack, haven't forgotten about you.

I'm sure he's dying to see you play more parlor tricks. He's called you on it too.

Good luck with your emotional intelligence, Mr. Counselor. Based on your inability to define a foundational term for your arguments, I'd say that particular brand of intelligence might be your forte.

 

[Received]

Blah blah blah.

When you use the term "God" what do you mean? Does it explicitly refer to the god Yahweh?

Lol, you really are blind as a bat.

More later.

 

[BL2KTN]

Lol, you really are blind as a bat.

More later.

I bet I can define words I use.

 

[Received]

I bet I can define words I use.

But you can't properly use the word "no". I guess that puts you at neutral.

 

[BL2KTN]

But you can't properly use the word "no". I guess that puts you at neutral.

No. What does the term "God" mean when you use it? Does it specifically refer to the god Yahweh?

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON






MOD HAT OFF

 

[Received]

Fair enough…

Clearly and concisely in lay terminology (though I don’t mind if you add detail) can you answer me a few questions? (Because I find ostentatious language a bit distracting and non-substantial to conversing in a meaningful way) I know you’ve answered this but I would rather just ask again and start this conversation from that point.

I find the use of the word "ostentatious" a refutation of the point that you don't like people who are ostentatious (you can't not like ostentatiousness while using the word "ostentatious"), and also what constitutes ostentatious language is in the eye of the beholder, you know, and also assumes my intentionality. If you think I'm being ostentatious, you should really see my writing when I'm being ostentatious, which hasn't happened since, I don't know, my mid-20s. If you get my dig.

Religion:

1.) Why do you believe in the Christian god and/or Christ? What led you to your belief, and why?

2.) You speak as though you are fascinated by the concept of god (correct me if wrong), why is that?

I think I answered these earlier here in post 6. I'd be happy to go into more details if you'd like. As for my interest in God, I seriously don't know how a person couldn't be interested in God, either as a serious metaphysical placeholder or how it says something about human beings if he doesn't exist. God as the Freudian projected father -- that alone is super duper fascinating. For me God is a necessary metaphysical ingredient in figuring out the world, particularly when we're talking about beginnings. Otherwise he's a coin toss that we hope shows up as we called it for reasons of hope: because I want the universe to be a certain way, and because it fits up with an intuitive sense that things have to be a certain way (e.g., later justice for the injustice we see all around us).

3.) This isn’t a notion I prescribe myself to, (or that the truth can be put in such context, and I personally hate ‘truth’ being used as a noun) You seem (correct me if wrong) to define god as your ‘personal truth to things’ (that’s not a quote, just a paraphrasing of how you have talked) Why is that, what led you to that conclusion?

Hmm, I'd be interested in what quotes you could find that would lead you to this summary. Because in a sense I definitely would define God as a personal truth to things, but not how people typically use truth. I see God as tied in with, as Kierkegaard called it, truth as subjectivity, or what he also said "that truth for which I can live and die." I believe that God is tied up with the personal meaning an individual has for his life, is literally the stuff that gives a person possibilities, and with these possibilities a potential self which in following brings happiness (or blessedness). In this sense we all have personal or subjective truths to follow which when not followed even with an endless understanding of objectivity (i.e., if you could know everything about the world) would mean you have no real reason to live.

Existentialism: I really only one question here, and I only ask because the definition of this word is so loosely defined and can be interpreted in a number of ways.

1.) Do you think (from within your own thoughts) that it’s possible to find objective morality outside of the faculties of religion? Why or Why not?

I don't know what objective morality means.

In general:

1.) What value or reason do you find in debating with others?

Polishing up my own faculties. Helping others get my point. What I try to make apparent, though, is special attention to the person behind the points, because it's my belief (influenced by a few years of therapy) that you can't convince the person (i.e., provide him motivation to consider your points seriously) unless you also treat him in a certain way. Of course, this can turn on its head when I see other posters not giving value to the other person through their debate style and how they present their arguments. You could say that there's a true ethic to argumentation just as there are ethics in other areas of life.

 

[BL2KTN]

Received,

When you use the term "God", what do you mean? Does the term refer specifically to the god, Yahweh?

 

[BL2KTN]

Received answered it in a thread not devoted to him answering questions.

When he uses the term, he means "the first cause machine". Feel free to subject me to your Socratic script now that you finally answered the request.

 

[Received]

Received answered it in a thread not devoted to him answering questions.

When he uses the term, he means "the first cause machine". Feel free to subject me to your Socratic script now that you finally answered the request.

That's not my comprehensive definition.

 

[BL2KTN]

That's not my comprehensive definition.

Then you lied to another person - he asked for a definition and you gave it. You didn't say, "Oh but there's more I mean when I use the term, but I'm saving it in a mystery box for later."

You've defined "God" as the first cause machine. Until you provide us with more details, that's all we have to go on. It's up to you whether you want to clarify your term further, but until then I'll be understanding your term "God" under your own definition: "first cause machine." You can ask your questions to me now.

 

[Received]

Then you lied to another person - he asked for a definition and you gave it. You didn't say, "Oh but there's more I mean when I use the term, but I'm saving it in a mystery box for later."

You've defined "God" as the first cause machine. Until you provide us with more details, that's all we have to go on. It's up to you whether you want to clarify your term further, but until then I'll be understanding your term "God" under your own definition: "first cause machine." You can ask your questions to me now.

Davian: "in this context."

You're trying too hard, BL.

 

[Davian]

Davian: "in this context."

You're trying too hard, BL.

The "in this context" qualifier is a lowering of the bar, in an attempt to keep the conversation going, rather than having the religionist repeatedly hitting the evidentiary wall that relegates gods to the imaginary. It is putting training wheels on the bicycle, so at least you can pedal it for a bit, rather than have us just look at it lying on the ground.

I wouldn't take a victory lap just yet.

 

[Received]

The "in this context" qualifier is a lowering of the bar, in an attempt to keep the conversation going, rather than having the religionist repeatedly hitting the evidentiary wall that relegates gods to the imaginary. It is putting training wheels on the bicycle, so at least you can pedal it for a bit, rather than have us just look at it lying on the ground.

I wouldn't take a victory lap just yet.

No victory laps about your post. Just clarifying for BL.

And evidentiary negates itself if this means scientific evidence is the limit of truth.

 

[Davian]

No victory laps about your post.

Will you be responding to those posts?

Just clarifying for BL.

And evidentiary negates itself if this means scientific evidence is the limit of truth.

I cannot parse this sentence. Science is about exploring and describing observations of reality.

What does "truth" mean, in this context? "Stuff that I need to believe as true or I will be sad"?