|
Post by Hemingway on Sept 11, 2009 17:18:48 GMT
I am not saying Hemmingway is to blame. I don't like the way Guillaume slipped the message to Cecile in French - most of us have done some French in school and understood it. In particular, it was a cheap shot at Michael G. The only criticism I have of Hemmingway is reacting in such a way to involve Cecile in a scrap as she is just starting off on the forum, but I accept that he was doing just that - reacting in this case to provocation from Guillaume. Pardon me if I talk in the third person, but I think it necessary to say who I am criticising and for what. That’s a fair comment alaisdir6. Point taken. My apologies if I offended Cecile or made her feel uncomfortable. Thanks or mediating fairly and pointing this out. I was a bit out of line including Cecile. You are more than welcome to the site Cecile and I look forward to your contributions on forum and its various threads.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Sept 13, 2009 14:50:08 GMT
I am not saying Hemmingway is to blame. I don't like the way Guillaume slipped the message to Cecile in French - most of us have done some French in school and understood it. In particular, it was a cheap shot at Michael G. The only criticism I have of Hemmingway is reacting in such a way to involve Cecile in a scrap as she is just starting off on the forum, but I accept that he was doing just that - reacting in this case to provocation from Guillaume. Pardon me if I talk in the third person, but I think it necessary to say who I am criticising and for what. There were no provocation from me, and if there were, there were "constructive". I just wanted to warn Cecile about the lack of moderation of this forum and the intrusion of the atheists. Both are the cause, for me, of the very impopularity of this forum, which should be far more successful according to the subject and the country involved. I do not not think a catholic "lambda" lad or lady, who came across this forum will be impressed about the delirium of "Thor" considered as "god" for mister Hemingway. Mister Hemingway still lives in a VERY old age, when Blessed Saint Patrick didn't start to convert the island, and when the druids were making the magic potion for Asterix - oh no sorry that is in Gaul.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Sept 13, 2009 14:59:54 GMT
Thank you for your responses. I am able to understand myself. I make a difference between atheists who are searching the thruth, because I'm sure if they really and honestly search the truth, they will discover God because God is truth, their's no way else. Dear Cecile, our atheists are not searching the truth. They are not "lost" in somehow, well they are, but not lost against their will. The problem of this forum is that atheists are posting beside trads. Hello ? Two extreme together, how can it work ? They are unbelievers, they do not want to believe, to research. While the trads are deep down believers - well i hope - and are trying to find a way to promote the good way to worship God in the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the proper way, the TLM. Cause the NOM is failing.
|
|
|
Post by cecile on Sept 16, 2009 2:31:11 GMT
I only feel unconfortable because I don't speak english very well. I am not atheist. I am a scientist and I really like science. I like studying the syllabus and the mistakes in the rationnalism. It's fascinating to discover the limits of science and revelation of God : this is where men become adoptive sons of God in Jesus Christ. But if you where catholic and you are atheist yet, I suppose something bad has happened. I cannot judge. I am sorry for that and hope things will get better. Guillaume is right, atheists on a trad forum are almost like Formula One fans among collectors of Car collection. The same words don't have the same meaning, and It hurts.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 16, 2009 11:23:46 GMT
The distinction should not be between Catholics and atheists but between those who are prepared to state their position straightforwardly and to articulate and defend their own presuppositions, and those who come only to taunt and mock (ezigbotutu) or to say that whatever they say means what they mean (like Humpty Dumpty in ALICE IN WONDERLAND openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=229612 and anyone who tries to explain or interrogate them is a liar (Hazelireland). Hemingway seems somewhat more honest than them from what I have seen of him.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 21, 2009 7:38:39 GMT
I am afraid that if you tell people they said something they didnt, then you ARE a liar, by definition.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 29, 2009 17:33:54 GMT
In the first section of Plato's REPUBLIC Thrasymachus says something (basically a claim that the highest good consists of the exercise of unbridled personal power, which is pretty close to Hazelireland's position). Socrates takes up this claim and shows that it not only false but incoherent in its own terms, before using the exposure of its incoherence as a starting-point to develop his own position (whether you like what he offers as a solution is another matter). According to Hazelireland, since Socrates claims Thrasymachus has said something quite different from what he intended to say, this makes Socrates a liar. Pass the hemlock?
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Sept 30, 2009 6:13:48 GMT
Oooo look, Hibernicus invents position for me that I never espoused. Nothing new here then huh?
|
|
|
Post by hythlodaye on Oct 4, 2009 15:32:14 GMT
This forum-- particularly the "not only for Catholics"-- section has the potential for facilitating an interesting and constructive dialogue between atheists and Catholics, and perhaps even other Christians. Unfortunately at the moment there is no meeting of minds at any level. The discussions are therefore barren. They usually degenerate into coconut-throwing over the question of whether or not there is a God. There is not much point in Catholics telling atheists they will pray for them if it will only annoy them (understandably). Perhaps one of the atheists could help clear the logjam (to mix my metaphors) by stating what they might consider to be possible evidence. To take an extreme and perhaps rather silly example. Suppose everyone were to hear a loud voice coming out of the sky announcing, in a Cecil B. de Mille type voice, like Paul Robeson belching down a drainpipe: "I am the Lord thy God" etc. Seriously, though, is admissible evidence something that must be measured in some way, or seen, felt, touched, heard or smelled? Or may one use deductive means as well as inductive.? I'm a new participant here and I won't have time to contribute often--probably only once a week.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 5, 2009 8:05:43 GMT
hythlodaye, I would more than love to acquiesce to your request but it is alas not possible. I also recognise the attempt you have made to reach a common ground, and your effort is not unappreciated. Also may I be the first to welcome you to the forum.
The main reason why I can not help you here is that each person who claims there is a god actually means something different to the next. As a random example of this, there are over 33820* forms of JUST Christianity, let alone the numerous forms of gods, spirituality, deism, pantheism and more which we can add to the fray. Some people do not think of god as anything other than a placeholder word for that which we do not yet understand and if that were how someone defined “god” then I am a believer in “god” myself.
It is therefore impossible to determine what the evidence should be, if you do not even know what you are looking for evidence FOR. I am forced to answer your question with a question. “Which god?” or “What is it you are trying to prove that I can list the evidence categories for?”
However, even if we establish this basic definition, there is no other area of discourse where we tell people what the evidence should be. In a science paper the scientist presents his case AND his evidence and describes how the evidence supports his case. Not once have we ever picked up a science paper which started with “I now think X, if anyone would like to disagree with me please write to me and tell me what evidence you would like to see”.
The same in a court of law. The same in politics. The same everywhere really.
I am a firm believer in “It is not one rule for X and one rule for everyone else”. Therefore I reject this “turning of the tables” and putting the onus on the non-believer to say what the evidence should be.
If someone has a case to make, the onus is on them to define their case, (in this case state exactly what they mean by god), present their evidence, and then describe exactly how the evidence supports their case.
*World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 5, 2009 13:51:04 GMT
Once again we see Hazelireland evading the question while pretending to address it. I have tried in vain to get him to address the question, but it's like picking up mercury with a fork - he just slithers away, shouting "Liar" as he goes. I give fair warning to anyone who tries to engage with him; if anyone offers evidence he will simply refuse to accept it as evidence without ever explaing why it is not evidence, then go around complaining that no-one has ever offered him any evidence. His central view is that he is under no obligation to explain himself to anyone or to observe any sort of code of conduct - in fact he behaves exactly as he thinks God behaves. That is why I think the moderator should expel him from this board and allow thos eof us who live in the real world to get on with discussing it.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 5, 2009 15:14:04 GMT
Still making up stuff about me I see. Let us take one at a time here then:
I answered the persons question the best I could, with full explanations for my position which you totally refused to address, choosing instead to take a dig at me instead. Why not just once try and act civil and address the words I actually did say, rather than making up words and positions for me which have nothing to do with me but which you clearly find it easier to deal with?
Go on try it, once. However if you continue to say that I have "made it clear" I want to disband the catholic church never to be seen again when I have in fact often said the exact opposite on many threads then YES I will call you a liar, and I will continue to do so until you apologise for lying and withdraw the false claim about me. Something you have NEVER done to date, choosing instead to compound the first lie with further lies like this new one that my "intent" is to destroy this board.
I did not shout anything like "liar" at the user above once. I only do this to you when... you guessed it... you outright lie. So telling people I "slither away, shouting "Liar" as I go" is clearly an outright fabrication as I did no such thing above. So total fail on your part there. However lying when the actual truth is right there before everyone in black and white is clearly what you like to do (again examples available on request).
I also will not "simply refuse to accept" any evidence. This however is something you would not know as you have never provided me any to refuse to accept. So instead of outright fabrications about me, try addressing me with some evidence that I can discuss, instead of making up excuses for not providing any like: "Oh its not that I HAVE no evidence, its just you wont ACCEPT it". Laughable and pure fabrication about me as usual.
"His central view is that he is under no obligation to explain himself to anyone or to observe any sort of code of conduct" entirely false. You merely have never asked me to explain something I have said. If there is something I have said you wish me to back up, merely ASK rather than outright lying saying I would not explain it. I can not explain something you have not asked me to explain. I am here for you, so try it. Go back and find something you want clarified and I will proceed to do so to the best of my ability.
"exactly as he thinks God behaves" - this is made up and is obvious simply by definition. Since I see no reason to think there IS such an entity, I therefore do not think it behaves in any way at all. So this by definition is made up about me. Epic fail here.
"I give fair warning to anyone who tries to engage with" Hibernicus. If you do not agree with him in everything he will proceed to make up things you never said, make up things you never did, make up things you never WOULD do and then the icing on the cake will be constant calls for "expulsion" and "banning" as if his wanton dishonesty puts YOU and not HIM in a position that deserves such treatment. He is an embarrassment to this board, himself, his faith and the people who profess to share said faith.
Suffice to say however Hibernicus, that the one thing you can do well to learn is that rejecting the grammar of a question and explaining at length why you do so, is not even remotely similar to "avoiding the question" as you would like to have it labelled. Thankfully few people here think what you say is true merely by virtue of you having said it, so your random baseless accusation fails epically and you can try again at your leisure.
|
|
|
Post by hythlodaye on Oct 10, 2009 20:03:41 GMT
Thank you, Hazelireland, for your courteous tone. I think we can deal with your difficulty that different kinds of theists mean different things by the word "God. For the sake of making progress I will attempt a narrower definition, as you ask--one that would include most adherents of the three main monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. I think "the uncreated Creator" or "the supreme spirit" would be acceptable to all three--even though they would disagree strongly about the divinity's other qualities. So if a god existed, in this more closely-defined sense, how could He (or She or It if you prefer) ever manifest the fact in a way you would be prepared to consider? Sorry to press you on this again, but I don't think there can be any meaningful discussion until we can find a modicum of common ground. I'm not trying to "turn the tables" on you. I just want to move the discussion forward and I can't think of any other way of achieving this. What do other contributors to this forum think?
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 12, 2009 7:56:49 GMT
Thanks again for the reply, and for your own tone which is held in stark contrast to a certain other user, making you look even better, and highlighting the failings in his.
I am afraid I need to restate my position as my answer has not changed yet. You ask me what I am prepared to consider? I am prepared to consider any evidence you have to put forward. Any at all. I am prepared to discuss it, and where I find strengths and failings in it I am prepared to point them out.
As I stated, there is no other area of our discourse where we are expected to tell the person with a proposition what his evidence should be. In science, in the court room, anywhere. The person making the proposition/case/study states their findings, states their evidence and then states how the latter led them to the former.
So it is literally impossible for me to tell you what evidence you should find. I sit instead agog waiting to hear what you have.
I find it easier to tell you what evidence I will NOT accept however, which might at least help you. I never accept anecdote as anything except as an indication of what areas warrant further study. I also never accept evidence that first requires you to assume the conclusion true before the evidence shows the conclusion is true. Finally I can not accept evidence for one thing, if that same evidence is also evidence for everything else too. Clearly if a statement is evidence for one side, and also evidence for the other side, it is evidence that is of no use to us.
Since, in my experience, those 3 things together make up well over 75% of the 'evidence 'I have been offered to date, I feel this alone should be a great help in your progress in this conversation and if you wish me to elaborate or give examples on any or all of them feel free to ask.
|
|
|
Post by hythlodaye on Oct 18, 2009 15:22:10 GMT
Hazelireland, I think we are fencing in the dark here. First, I don't want to be involved in your spat with Hibernicus, which does neither of you much credit. Second, you originally stated that you couldn't say what might constitute admissible evidence for the existence of "a god", because there were so many different meanings attached to the word "god". I think I dealt satisfactorily with that by narrowing it down to what the three great monotheistic religions mean by the word. This surely disposed of what you said was the MAIN reason why you couldn't help me. Third, my personal beliefs are irrelevant here. I am approaching this from the point of view of an inquiring and open-minded agnostic. It is not up to me to produce evidence: I have nowhere indicated that I am trying to prove anything. I am not telling you what the evidence should be; I am asking you what sort of evidence you would be prepared to consider. There would be no point in anyone copying and pasting relevant portions of Plato, Aristotle, the Institutes of Calvin, the Summa Theologica of Aquinas or something by Averroes or Avicenna, if it turned out that philosophical arguments were ruled out ab initio. Finally, I agree totally with your categories of evidence that would definitely not be admissible. So, I am fairly sure, would the six gentlemen mentioned above. To return to my original question: Is admissible evidence something that can be measured in some way, or seen, felt, touched, heard or smelled? May one employ deductive means as well as inductive? Aren't those fair questions?
|
|