AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-09-16, 18:46   Link #2721
Luna91
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrincess View Post
No its just the whole group thing, where one religion thinks they are better than another (Won't name any groups so I won't offend people) But I had a experience where they were trying to convert us and they litterally said "They are the best religious group..."
It may not be the same for all of the groups.... but.... I can't really explain it much better than that (Besides they choose you're husband/wife.... So much for freedom, or Idk if thats changed now but they tried to choose my moms husband.....)
Oh I see what your saying. Well it is true that if you go to a Catholic Church they only preach Catholicism Its the same for every other religion. I guess there would be no validity at all if even the 'preachers' didn't believe that their path/religion was right. And they chose your husband/wife? Who? Never heard of that before...
__________________
avi credit: main_titles
Luna91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 18:49   Link #2722
EnchantingPrincess
~♥~G-Ri~♥~
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: In G-Dragon Heaven
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luna91 View Post
Oh I see what your saying. Well it is true that if you go to a Catholic Church they only preach Catholicism Its the same for every other religion. I guess there would be no validity at all if even the 'preachers' didn't believe that their path/religion was right. And they chose your husband/wife? Who? Never heard of that before...
Not catholics (If thats what you're thinking) but.... another group... (The one I dislike, they also do allow a man to have 7 wifes...) Gross But I don't really know if thats changed now, my mom told me this anyways....
__________________
~♥BigBangBigBang♥~
EnchantingPrincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 18:51   Link #2723
Hooves
♣~Sleepy~♣
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Xanadu
Age: 20
Send a message via Skype™ to Hooves
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrincess View Post
Not catholics (If thats what you're thinking) but.... another group... (The one I dislike, they also do allow a man to have 7 wifes...) Gross But I don't really know if thats changed now, my mom told me this anyways....
Oh this brings me memories when a Protestant (Not offending the religion, just saying this guy in particular) moved into my neighborhood, and he had 5 wives... It was really unexpected, and uncomfortable to live near someone that hangs out with that many wives o.o... But by 2007 they moved away *sigh*
__________________
MyAnimeList (Hoovesahoy)
Avatar from: Hooves
Signature from: Patchy
Hooves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 19:03   Link #2724
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrincess View Post
Arizona..... Why??
I'm just curious because I can't imagine having never met any atheists. Then again, I'm sure you have, it isn't like we wear name tags denoting our religious beliefs. It seems to me, here in MA, people are either apathetic, Catholic by tradition, or agnostic/atheist. I honestly have trouble finding fervently religious people now that I'm out of my Catholic high school.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 19:06   Link #2725
Hooves
♣~Sleepy~♣
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Xanadu
Age: 20
Send a message via Skype™ to Hooves
Well where I live in MO, it is not very rare to not see any Catholics, but its rare to see Atheist here as well. Everyone here is mostly based on Catholicism, that me being the only person that I know being an Atheist in my school makes me feel weird...
__________________
MyAnimeList (Hoovesahoy)
Avatar from: Hooves
Signature from: Patchy
Hooves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 19:09   Link #2726
Luna91
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrincess View Post
Not catholics (If thats what you're thinking) but.... another group... (The one I dislike, they also do allow a man to have 7 wifes...) Gross But I don't really know if thats changed now, my mom told me this anyways....
Err i think thats Mormonism, i'm not sure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooves View Post
Oh this brings me memories when a Protestant (Not offending the religion, just saying this guy in particular) moved into my neighborhood, and he had 5 wives... It was really unexpected, and uncomfortable to live near someone that hangs out with that many wives o.o... But by 2007 they moved away *sigh*
Protestant? As in Chrisitan protestant? They are against polygamy well at least 'mainstream' protestantism anyway, he might be from a sect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooves View Post
Well where I live in MO, it is not very rare to not see any Catholics, but its rare to see Atheist here as well. Everyone here is mostly based on Catholicism, that me being the only person that I know being an Atheist in my school makes me feel weird...
Hmm thats the opposite to where I'm from Christians seem to be very rare, even at religious schools I found that anyway.
__________________
avi credit: main_titles

Last edited by NightWish; 2010-09-16 at 19:15. Reason: double-post
Luna91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 19:20   Link #2727
Hooves
♣~Sleepy~♣
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Xanadu
Age: 20
Send a message via Skype™ to Hooves
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luna91 View Post
Protestant? As in Chrisitan protestant? They are against polygamy well at least 'mainstream' protestantism anyway, he might be from a sect.
I was confused as well, but I was a little to young to understand too detail-like on why he would go against his own religion's rules.
__________________
MyAnimeList (Hoovesahoy)
Avatar from: Hooves
Signature from: Patchy
Hooves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 20:01   Link #2728
FatalMemory
Member
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
I'm an atheist, so I'm irreligious.
I wasn't christened/baptised and my parents taught me nothing about believing or disbelieving.
__________________
FatalMemory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 20:03   Link #2729
Hooves
♣~Sleepy~♣
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Xanadu
Age: 20
Send a message via Skype™ to Hooves
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatalMemory View Post
I'm an atheist, so I'm irreligious.
I wasn't christened/baptised and my parents taught me nothing about believing or disbelieving.
*hands FatalMemory a piece of Melon Bread* Same thing went with me till I reached 13 and my mother thought that the morality of the family was getting low.

Spoiler for Melon Bread:
__________________
MyAnimeList (Hoovesahoy)
Avatar from: Hooves
Signature from: Patchy
Hooves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 20:08   Link #2730
Ricky Controversy
Frandle & Nightbag
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I'm just curious because I can't imagine having never met any atheists. Then again, I'm sure you have, it isn't like we wear name tags denoting our religious beliefs. It seems to me, here in MA, people are either apathetic, Catholic by tradition, or agnostic/atheist. I honestly have trouble finding fervently religious people now that I'm out of my Catholic high school.
Having lived in Arizona for a while, I can say that there are vast stretches of territory there where there are very few atheists at all, let alone ones that will talk about it. If you were going to find a Non-Christian or Non-Jewish population of any note, it'd be in the northern part of the state, where non-deistic spiritual traditions are in vogue.

And being originally from and currently living in MA...well, you won't find too many people who are 'fervently' religious in the sense that they talk about it frequently, but if you're looking in the right places, you find some strong pockets of rather more contemplative, reserved religious folks. Of course, I did a stint in the Harvard Divinity School, so I had more than ample excuse to travel in those circles, and it's rather humorous. Those people tend to talk so casually and fairly about the spectrum of beliefs that you'd never know where on it they fell without them telling you.
__________________
Ricky Controversy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 20:17   Link #2731
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
I like to call them 'academic theists.' I had one as a teacher in high school, he ironically strengthened my convictions towards agnosticism since he presented all sides of the argument fairly.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 20:29   Link #2732
Hooves
♣~Sleepy~♣
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Xanadu
Age: 20
Send a message via Skype™ to Hooves
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky Controversy View Post
Having lived in Arizona for a while, I can say that there are vast stretches of territory there where there are very few atheists at all, let alone ones that will talk about it. If you were going to find a Non-Christian or Non-Jewish population of any note, it'd be in the northern part of the state, where non-deistic spiritual traditions are in vogue.

And being originally from and currently living in MA...well, you won't find too many people who are 'fervently' religious in the sense that they talk about it frequently, but if you're looking in the right places, you find some strong pockets of rather more contemplative, reserved religious folks. Of course, I did a stint in the Harvard Divinity School, so I had more than ample excuse to travel in those circles, and it's rather humorous. Those people tend to talk so casually and fairly about the spectrum of beliefs that you'd never know where on it they fell without them telling you.
Its just the case that you never meet Atheist that would never talk about it
__________________
MyAnimeList (Hoovesahoy)
Avatar from: Hooves
Signature from: Patchy
Hooves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-16, 20:30   Link #2733
Ricky Controversy
Frandle & Nightbag
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I like to call them 'academic theists.' I had one as a teacher in high school, he ironically strengthened my convictions towards agnosticism since he presented all sides of the argument fairly.
That's a fairly typical outcome, actually. While I was there, I'd see a number of eager young students go into discussions looking for answers, only to find that the professors had given them cause to ask further questions of themselves and the world. I remember one particularly conceited philosophy student had it in his mind to mock theology as a discipline--he often called it a 'bastardization of real philosophy'--and had a stock list of very primitive things he was expecting to hear from my professor's mouth.

Boy, was he surprised...

In truth, there's a sort of tagline about theology programs that one of my favorite professors used to utter to religious students. "If you come out of this program with your faith unshaken, the faculty has failed you." I always found that worth thinking on.
__________________
Ricky Controversy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-17, 10:09   Link #2734
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
Empirically verified information is by definition, truth.
That's not completely accurate. Empirically verified information is regarded true until proven otherwise.

And insofar as empirical evidence is derived from only what we can physically perceive, there will always be the possibility of things that we have not found and things that are forever beyond our ability to "know", simply because of the limitations of our physical senses.

That is the basis of Kant's "two-world" metaphysics, the idea that there are two classes of objects: appearances (phenomena) and things in themselves (noumena). "Things in themselves" are, according to Kant, absolutely real in the sense that they would exist and have whatever properties they have even if there were no human beings around to perceive them. Appearances, on the other hand, are not absolutely real because their existence and properties depend on human perceivers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
Though according to TinyRedLeaf in another thread, there may be more than one kind of truth. Unacceptable - maybe.
Say what? I don't recall making such a claim and, if I apparently did, then it seems I've caused more misunderstanding than understanding.

What I'm likely to have said is an iteration of the above, that because of the limitations of our senses, there are very likely things that are forever beyond our ability to know. That being the case, the proper attitude of one who sincerely wishes to learn is to keep as open a mind as possible, to always question one's basic assumptions, because there is always a chance that we may have unwittingly closed our minds to other ways of perceiving truth.

By that I do not mean to imply that there are many "kinds" of truth, but rather that there are many possible ways to the "truth". In any case, it's a bit pointless to ask whether there is just one truth or many truths because we will never have any way of getting that answer, let alone verify it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
To quote TinyRedLeaf, "clarity of writing follows clarity of thought".
Heh, I'm flattered, but it would appear that I, too, could follow my own advice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xKou View Post
omg this is one hell of a philosphical battle. considering im only a fourteen year old asian dude who watches anime all day, i CANT CAN BARLY CATCH UP OR UNDERSTAND WHAT ANYONE IS SAYING. I NEED TO LOOK IN THE DICTIONARY EVERY 5 SECONDS LOL. please convey your thoughs in simpler terms...
And the above is what I find very sad, because every time this thread comes up, we inevitably get tangled up in a jargon-filled debate that doesn't even come close to describing the essence of any one given religion.

This overwhelming focus on whether or not God exists, for example, is really no more than just a sideshow to the larger concerns of Judeo-Christian theology. If that question alone represents the entirety of these religions, you wouldn't find as many believers among intelligent, well-read individuals as you would today.

In the end, religion is but one out of many possible worldviews. In particular, it provides one of the most obvious means for finding or creating meaning for our existence, that which gives our life value. From this perspective alone, I can find something of profound value in religion, something worthy of respect, secular though my worldview may be.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-17, 10:23   Link #2735
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
That's not completely accurate. Empirically verified information is regarded true until proven otherwise.

And insofar as empirical evidence is derived from only what we can physically perceive, there will always be the possibility of things that we have not found and things that are forever beyond our ability to "know", simply because of the limitations of our physical senses.

That is the basis of Kant's "two-world" metaphysics, the idea that there are two classes of objects: appearances (phenomena) and things in themselves (noumena). "Things in themselves" are, according to Kant, absolutely real in the sense that they would exist and have whatever properties they have even if there were no human beings around to perceive them. Appearances, on the other hand, are not absolutely real because their existence and properties depend on human perceivers.
I know, I oversimplified it to try to explain it to Cipher. For all intents and purposes, in a debate setting, empirically verified information is what backs up your claims. That is all I'm trying to say. So more accurately, it is the 'closest to the truth we can get, right now.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
Say what? I don't recall making such a claim and, if I apparently did, then it seems I've caused more misunderstanding than understanding.
This is what you said:

"This is where things get interesting. I don't fully agree with your definition of "truth". If you can find it, I recommend The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett, who offers compelling evidence to show that different people from different cultures, in this case Asians versus Westerners, have very different conceptions of "truth"."

I don't disagree with the notion there may be some undiscoverable truths out there, for the record.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-17, 10:23   Link #2736
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
You need not prove thought - it proves itself, simply through its existence. Empirically verified information is by definition, truth. Though according to TinyRedLeaf in another thread, there may be more than one kind of truth. Unacceptable - maybe. All I've said is that you can't verify it and it holds no weight in a debate. Conjecture is unacceptable in a debate as you must have some kind of factual basis to what you are saying. Logic and rationalism should lead you towards empirical analysis. You might not be able to prove what you're trying to say using logic alone, but it can help you make a conclusion when there is no way to verify the truth.
Debate does rely on known principles for its foundation but the definition of "facts" itself is an argument. But It seems that you hold 'dearly' to this "truth". I guess we cannot move on if you do not reconsider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionism



Quote:
I do not know if you are doing it on purpose but you are running around in circles over semantics.
Semantics serve as foundation for argument. If we cannot define what we are talking about, we cannot effectively and cooperatively analyze.


Quote:
I'm done replying to you unless you actually want to discuss the subject with me, no offense.
Which subject are you referring to? If truly you feel happily caged within this box of "empiricism", then I guess we are done.

Quote:
I'm sure you'll have some psuedophilosophical question to ask me regarding this post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

How will my questions be "pseudo-philosophical"?


Quote:
but I think you'd do better to read up on proper debate tactics
How have you concluded that I lack "proper debate tactics"? What is the purpose of debate, in your opinion?

Quote:
and formulate an argument first, then reply.
You are misunderstanding. It is you who have made the argument by asserting that empiricism equates to truth and that "the self" exists. To properly analyze this assertion, we must deconstruct and remove any of its inconsistencies. Thus, I ask: "how?".

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
That's not completely accurate. Empirically verified information is regarded true until proven otherwise.
Why?

Quote:
And insofar as empirical evidence is derived from only what we can physically perceive, there will always be the possibility of things that we have not found and things that are forever beyond our ability to "know", simply because of the limitations of our physical senses.

That is the basis of Kant's "two-world" metaphysics, the idea that there are two classes of objects: appearances (phenomena) and things in themselves (noumena). "Things in themselves" are, according to Kant, absolutely real in the sense that they would exist and have whatever properties they have even if there were no human beings around to perceive them. Appearances, on the other hand, are not absolutely real because their existence and properties depend on human perceivers.
Sound's like Plato's own Theory of Forms.



Quote:
In the end, religion is but one out of many possible worldviews. In particular, it provides one of the most obvious means for finding or creating meaning for our existence, that which gives our life value. From this perspective alone, I can find something of profound value in religion, something worthy of respect, secular though my worldview may be.
So you place value on religion on the fact that religion gives "meaning"? But isn't it necessary to ask if this "meaning" is truly valid or not?

Also, am I correct in assuming that you equate well-read with intelligence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrincess View Post
I do pray, believe in God, but I just rather stay away from religious groups....
Why do you pray and believe?

Last edited by james0246; 2010-09-17 at 11:21. Reason: double post...
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-17, 10:46   Link #2737
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
Debate does rely on known on principles for its foundation but the definition of "facts" itself is an argument. But It seems that you hold 'dearly' to this "truth". I guess we cannot move on if you do not reconsider.
I don't hold dearly to anything, it is simply impractical to expect to discuss this subject if we can't agree on a basic premise of what is to be considered true. As I've pointed out, solipsism isn't inherently wrong - but if you want to debate something with me, you have to make an assumption regarding truth itself. I don't really have any desire to debate the validity of empiricism as a theory. It is standard practice to assert one's claims with evidence. You can claim it is faulty reasoning, but I'll continue claiming you're a solipsist if you do that so I am incapable of actually seeing eye-to-eye with you. For what it's worth, I'm an agnostic, and I don't rule out solipsism. I make an assumption that the world around me is real, and base my ideas on that notion. I could be wrong, but even so I wouldn't really be capable of presenting any idea of mine with credibility if I felt everything was unverifiable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
Semantics serve as foundation for argument. If we cannot define what we are talking about, we cannot effectively and cooperatively analyze.
Sure they do, but what is your argument, exactly? So far, all you've done is ask me questions, and to what end, I do not know. If you were questioning me whilst subtly implying some stance of your own, I could actually be exchanging ideas with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
Which subject are you referring to? If truly you feel happily caged within this box of "empiricism", then I guess we are done.
What method do you suggest we use, then? If we cannot debate using empirical evidence as foundation for our claims, isn't everything we say just conjecture? You're free to believe that if you want, but as I said earlier I make the assumption that the natural world can be known.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

How will my questions be "pseudo-philosophical"?
I'd have to be attacking your character or credibility, for it to be an ad hominem. I've done neither (in fact, I've even reiterated that I don't think solipsism is a wrong position. It very well might be true - but if you are a solipsist, you essentially cannot participate in a debate). I don't have any inherent bias against the questions you ask, they just aren't the type of discussion I'd like to be involved in.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
How have you concluded that I lack "proper debate tactics"? What is the purpose of debate, in your opinion?
You haven't formulated any argument. Rather, you're attempting to undermine the ability to debate by claiming truth cannot be known. That's fine if you like that position, but it isn't conducive for discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
You are misunderstanding. It is you who have made the argument by asserting that empiricism equates to truth and that "the self" exists. To properly analyze this assertion, we must deconstruct and remove any of its inconsistencies. Thus, I ask: "how?".
What are the inconsistencies, then? List them, as you see them. At least then, I can get some idea of what you are thinking. I find interest when I debate someone like monstert because even though his views are vastly different from mine, he adopts a stance and gives reasons why he feels that way. I feel I can learn about the rationale of opposing viewpoints when that occurs. You've done no such thing, which is why I find this discussion with you rather irksome (though I'm too stubborn to stop, )

Last edited by ChainLegacy; 2010-09-17 at 10:59.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-17, 11:24   Link #2738
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
This is what you said:

"This is where things get interesting. I don't fully agree with your definition of "truth". If you can find it, I recommend The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett, who offers compelling evidence to show that different people from different cultures, in this case Asians versus Westerners, have very different conceptions of "truth"."
Ah, I see. That's a mistake of punctuation on my part. Prof Nisbett certainly wasn't making any kind of claims about different kinds of truth, but was rather illustrating how different cultures, in this case those of East Asia and the West, affect the way the people perceive their environment, hence the "conceptions" of truth.

Which ties back to my thesis, that we are all affected by bias. That being the case, it's not enough to just challenge other people's assumptions, but also to challenge one's own. That is exactly what the Catholic faculty of your high school were doing by actively questioning their faith. Not because they doubt God, but rather because they seek to reaffirm their confidence in his Word.

That is what sincere theists would do. If they can do it, I see no reason why people with secular worldviews cannot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
So you place value on religion on the fact that religion gives "meaning"?
Yes, among other things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
But isn't it necessary to ask if this "meaning" is truly valid or not?
Also yes, but that's not what you're really trying to do. Rather, you're merely asking for the sake of asking a question, which gets very exasperating.

Like everyone else is saying, in order to have a debate, a robust exchange of ideas, you need to present propositions of your own. Otherwise there is no point to the discussion.

Last edited by TinyRedLeaf; 2010-09-17 at 11:38.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-17, 11:26   Link #2739
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
I don't really have any desire to debate the validity of empiricism as a theory.
Then we are done with this aspect of the argument.

Quote:
You can claim it is faulty reasoning, but I'll continue claiming you're a solipsist if you do that so I am incapable of actually seeing eye-to-eye with you.
I did not assert that there is no other knowledge than the self. I simply asked for your own reasoning for your assumption of empiricism=truth. Since there is none, then we move on to another argument.


Quote:
For what it's worth, I'm an agnostic, and I don't rule out solipsism. I make an assumption that the world around me is real, and base my ideas on that notion. I could be wrong, but even so I wouldn't really be capable of presenting any idea of mine with credibility if I felt everything was unverifiable.
The thing is, you have to be flexible with your principles. In an argument of "pure truth", it is required that we deconstruct "assumptions" as far as we can. In a scientific argument, however, we must rely on known laws to determine consistencies. It is a matter of whether you "assert a true truth" or "assert an assumption".


Quote:
Sure they do, but what is your argument, exactly? So far, all you've done is ask me questions, and to what end, I do not know. If you were questioning me whilst subtly implying some stance of your own, I could actually be exchanging ideas with you.
As I've said, I have asked *you* questions for your own argument. In another perspective, I argue for truth---The "clear" definition and relationship of ideas.

Quote:
What method do you suggest we use, then? If we cannot debate using empirical evidence as foundation for our claims, isn't everything we say just conjecture? You're free to believe that if you want, but as I said earlier I make the assumption that the natural world can be known.
Then, we have agreed and can move on to another argument.

Quote:
I'd have to be attacking your character or credibility, for it to be an ad hominem. I've done neither (in fact, I've even reiterated that I don't think solipsism is a wrong position.
You have assumed the trait of the quality of my questions. I simply place it there to illuminate my question of "Why do you assume I would ask such a question?"

Quote:
if you are a solipsist, you essentially cannot participate in a debate.
Why not? [If I were a solipsist] I may have a greater requirement for "truth", but does this mean I can't participate in debate? Can I not argue for solipsism?

Quote:
I don't have any inherent bias against the questions you ask, they just aren't the type of discussion I'd like to be involved in.
I see. But I only ask because you seem to assume that empiricism = true knowledge.


Quote:
You haven't formulated any argument. Rather, you're attempting to undermine the ability to debate by claiming truth cannot be known. That's fine if you like that position, but it isn't conducive for discussion.
How have I claimed that truth cannot be known?
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-09-17, 11:35   Link #2740
Cipher
.....
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
Also yes, but that's not what you're really trying to do. Rather, you're merely asking for the sake of asking a question, which gets very exasperating.
How have you concluded that I merely ask questions for asking questions?

Quote:
Like everyone else is saying, in order to have a debate, a robust exchange of ideas, you need to present propositions of your own. Otherwise there is no point in the discussion.
Are you thinking in terms of clarifying the definitions of "truth"? But isn't that the point of discussion?

But it is interesting that you say that two positions are required for discussion. I disagree. For debate perhaps it is but I don't think it is necessary for discussion.
Cipher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
not a debate, philosophy, religion

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:15.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.