The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 6:31 am
You are a veteran of discussions such as this, and you know that this is BS. There is no requirement to demonstrate faith, or to prove beliefs (unless they are represented as fact). Your own unbelief is just as unverifiable as my belief.
I think it is you that have responded with BS. But I have to congratulate you for an insult and a proper ad hom in one sentence.
I do not have to "believe" in any thing. And I disgree that gravity is not constantly verifiable.
Surely if there is any thing to challenge it, then why not take the tall building test?
I don't really see an ad hom, but you're right.
An ad hom is a remark made against a "man's" character. The comment that I was a veteran of that sort of argument immediately tries to pour scorn on my argument, not because of any valid point but because you are drawing attention to my character. This is a perfect AD HOM.
You and I are both veterans of this kind of argument; we've both done it many times before. To refer to that is not an insult or an ad hom, or an attack of any sort. It's a compliment, if anything. You know your way around arguments of this kind because of your extensive experience. Still, I'm sorry anyway that you found offence in what I said.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 5th, 2021, 6:51 am
I think it is you that have responded with BS. But I have to congratulate you for an insult and a proper ad hom in one sentence.
I do not have to "believe" in any thing. And I disgree that gravity is not constantly verifiable.
Surely if there is any thing to challenge it, then why not take the tall building test?
I don't really see an ad hom, but you're right.
An ad hom is a remark made against a "man's" character. The comment that I was a veteran of that sort of argument immediately tries to pour scorn on my argument, not because of any valid point but because you are drawing attention to my character. This is a perfect AD HOM.
You and I are both veterans of this kind of argument; we've both done it many times before. To refer to that is not an insult or an ad hom, or an attack of any sort. It's a compliment, if anything. You know your way around arguments of this kind because of your extensive experience. Still, I'm sorry anyway that you found offence in what I said.
No problem.
On these forums the base line seems to be adversarial, and so that is what is anticipated.
Thanks for clearing it up.
Hoggy wrote: ↑April 6th, 2021, 6:00 am
Yes, what is paradoxical about requiring something of someone else? It is the basis of all correction and reformation
Hoggy wrote: ↑April 6th, 2021, 6:00 am
Yes, what is paradoxical about requiring something of someone else? It is the basis of all correction and reformation
What do you require of someone else? To never fall or fail and stay true as a building? Does the building itself defy the gravity of the pencil thrown away from it? Is gravity truly the objective end result of our subjectivity? Does science used in an example explain everything to us? Do we not throw away the pencil or the building of the pencil? Do we objectively accept that our subjectivity falls away and never rises again in questioning the fall of our objective? Can we use this as the sole basis for all correction and reformation when our minds fail to rise and fall and the tall building melts away with the physical and waking world? Do the same rules apply in our dreaming mind as it does in the world awakened with others? Can we prove that they and the building are not just in our heads and not falling? Where is gravity then? Where are our questions about what is paradoxical when we require something of someone who isn't there but is? What is that basis for our corrections and reformation? Emotion and fear poke their heads up in the thought of an objective means to end a subjective thought? Must we remain skeptics until the end? Are we not human with both free thoughts and willing emotions that will us to think of freedom at will? Is there an answer that could satisfy us? I look forward to this discussion taking us further, even if we hit a wall of contradictions used in the loose sense of defining what is a paradox. The feelings that defy the thoughts of the physical boundaries of the sensory world, the thoughts or emotions refusing to fall down. I will remain skeptical by choice and in so refuse to define the skeptic with words that go beyond the words the skeptic uses...I apologize for a paradoxical reply to questioning the paradox.....in circles we go.