reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob Because you are consistently malicious and rude to people, and respond accordingly. This is painfully obvious, and I would hope that it is as such, even to you. Plenty of people have been sincere in their responses to you; whether or not they agree with what you said, and you consistently respond with rudeness. My question, still, is simply why?
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob No, I'm not embarrassed, because nothing I said merits feeling as such. My comment didn't have an agenda, therefore, it's not like you 'caught' me doing something that I should feel embarrassed about. I told you that you make me sad. Whether or not you wanted to hear it, I was just giving you a statement of fact about how I was feeling. You, however, responded by insulting me. That's what my question was; why you feel the need to do that? Unless you were simply confirming that I was indeed sad...but that doesn't seem to fit your track record in terms of anything I've seen thus far*. * - i.e., your comment on my question titled 'I don't understand'.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob So it's accurate, valid and purposeful to tell people that they: piss on love are consumed with themselves (when nothing they said merits that) are ungrateful and bitter (when you don't know them, and nothing they said merits that at all, especially when prior comments have show otherwise. I.e., him routinely referring to his children, etc) are stupid. And these are just from things you've said on the first few posts I see. These things have purpose? Can you please tell me what that purpose is?
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob You still didn't answer my question. You have a tendency to do that, I've noticed. Oh, and it wasn't a critique. It was simply a statement of fact, based on how I feel. I'm sure if you were to look up a definition or something (you like telling folks to do that, yes?), you might see that. I gave anything but a 'detailed analysis and assessment' of you or anything you have said.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob Why do you say things like that to people that you don't know? (And just in case you were going to reciprocate by asking me why I said what I said... My post was based on my reading of this thread, because it interested me, and your responses to various questions.)
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob "That figures, that you like Anthrax. That speaks volumes." Boy does it! It says I have heard a song by Anthrax when I was in High School. You nailed it. "You're surrounded by love, and everyday you 'piss' on it, because you know it'll be there again, tomorrow, when you wake up." Are you sure you're talking about me, here? "You're ungrateful and bitter. So you spread your venom, on sites like these, and to anyone else who will 'tolerate' you." Again, shouldn't you possibly consider how this may apply to you? "Most people have love in their life, REAL love, not the crap you think you've got, and so they let you go on your merry way, being insultingly arrogant and obtuse as you are." I am happily married with three children and am blissfully happy. And, as I recall, it has been you that has done the insulting. "I'm not one of those people." Right................ "In fact, I think I'm helping you more than anyone has ever bothered to try." Oh boy. "You don't see it yet, because you are CONSUMED IN YOURSELF." Do you OWN a mirror? "Remember, ONE of us believes in something bigger than ourselves. That one is me. (Don't forget that.)" I believe in a number of things larger than myself. You presume a lot. As far as you being a loving, great, happy dude, I'm just not picking up that vibe.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob It's good to know that at least you agree with yourself. To quote Anthrax, "Talking to you is like clapping with one hand." To support my knowledge claim, let's deconstruct what you've just said: "You're wrong (as usual)." Without any support, this is meaningless, and I think you know that. "For a fan of 'logic', you don't know much about it!" Why does logic require air single quotes? Is it (bunny fingers) "so called" logic? If so, how do you support that claim? Moreover, you claim I don't know much about logic, and yet you are making a completely unsupported claim of knowledge. Logic, indeed.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob "Your so stupid, it's sad." It's "You're" It's a contraction. Sad :( "The way you answer each piece individually, as if my replies can't be answered 'on the whole'." You pose a series of arguments and balk when they are answered one at a time. Not to mention, having read this entire conversation, you do the very same thing. "Explain this: Team A beats Team B; Team B beats Team C; Team C beats Team A" There are any number of explanations for such a scenario. Perhaps team C learned something between games, perhaps it had a better strategy against team A than against team B, perhaps in the interim, Team C practiced very hard, changed coaches, gained a player, etc. ad infinitum. "The above scenario is not logical, it defies reason." Nope. "And, you can't explain it any better than the 'amputee' question can be explained." Yes, I can. Bottomline - there is NO answer acceptable to you if 'God' is part of the equation. You're a bigot. However, if a scenario exists in the world & dimensions you recognize, then its always explainable. "Now you have a 'catch 22' before you!" No sir. "If you explain how my 'Team A,B, & C' scenario is possible, then you prove my following accusation correct." Nope. B"ut, if you agree with that my 'Team...' scenario is unexplainable, then it means that both questions are equally meaningless." Nope. "Take your pick! Either way, you lose. :)" Nope. This is great fun, really, but it's sort of like playing basketball with a five year old. You keep referring everyone to the dictionary, so I'd like to make some reading suggestions for you: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/" target="_blank">http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html" target="_blank">http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(rhetoric" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(rhetoric) And definately this one: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/160559/proper_internet_forum_and_message_board.html?cat=4" target="_blank">http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/160559/proper_internet_forum_and_message_board.html?cat=4
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob "I'll go off on a tangent for you...." Actually, these questions aren't off tangent at all. They actually are excellent examples. Well, at least the first two. "Why won't God heal bald people?!?" Good question. It would definitely be within a god's power. "Why won't God heal the toothless?!?" Good question. It would definitely be within a god's power. It could be that the answer to your two above questions along with the original question have the same answer as to why unicorns don't heal deaf people. "Finally, let's ask the really important question... Why won't God heal your brain, to recognize a STUPID question when you see one?!?" If a god struggles with small tasks like baldness, and missing teeth, it might not have the ability. We should ask the unicorns if they can help me. "Perhaps, it is because you are not 'stupid' at all, but merely an antagonist who gets his kicks by pretending to be an intellectual married-to-the-scientific method for every thought pattern he has." I make no ifs or buts about it. I AM an antagonist, and there isn't anything wrong with that. It serves as a perfect stage to make people confront their own ideas. It may annoy you, but it's not about YOU. You're just as antagonistic. Perhaps you just are upset because it's not very satisfying when i don't take your fight bait. "Personally, I don't break down every tiny little aspect of my life into individual pieces. I don't examine the minutia of everything to the point that it loses all meaning or purpose." when was it established that breaking our lives down to smaller pieces made it lose it's meaning? That's a premature conclusion. It's not that I'm advocating to look at just the micro. I'm saying that the micro must fit into any macro. I'm a big picture person. I always have been, but the details ARE important too. To ignore that would be a gross imbalance. "I don't think you do either (<-- that's a compliment), but so far, that's ALL I've seen you do here." I'd be doing no good if I didn't antagonize. Good ideas arise out of extreme trial and vetting. If an idea can't manage scrutiny from all angles, it's probably a bad idea. Places like SP don't need a bunch of people chatting and agreeing about things like a god or gods being great. Intellectual forums need challenge and a standard to meet. Otherwise it's useless.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob "Btw, I don't know if you caught that (at the end), but THE DICTIONARY says there IS such a thing as a "stupid question". What's your response to Mr. Merriam & Mr. Webster?" Dictionaries aren't an authority on philosophy or logic. For instance, a dictionary could support the sentence construction of "There was a great deal of hot ice on the mountain." The nature of ice does not prevent the speaker from describing it as hot. The same applies for the idea of a "dumb question." The closest thing to a dumb question is a "begged question." An example would be asking why the sky is green. It cannot be answered because it relies on a false premise. I.e. - the sky is not green, so there can be no answer to why it is what it is not. If you object to the premise of this question, you'd need to establish what premise and why it was falsely established. This would involve evidence on your part. Specifically, you'd need one amputee to have their limb regrow to claim this question was begged.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob "Fine, for your sake, I'll presume the 'burden of proof' of my faith is on me, despite the fact that that phrase is completely oxymoronic." Faith is only a medium. You don't need to say anything else on the matter, you just need to understand that your belief in a god is unsubstantiated so it is not going to have as much merit as other theories that do have evidence and are contrary to your beliefs. "Let's go ahead, as you wish, and only examine this innocent question..." Yes. Lets. "am⋅pu⋅tee /ËŒæmpyʊˈti/ [am-pyoo-tee] –noun a person who has lost all or part of an arm, hand, leg, etc., by amputation. am⋅pu⋅tate /ˈæmpyÊŠËŒteɪt/ [am-pyoo-teyt] –verb (used with object), -tat⋅ed, -tat⋅ing. 1. to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery. Btw, you suggested "dead limbs" qualify under this question. The dictionary declares otherwise." Before you start embarassing yourself brief yourself here. http://www.amputee-coalition.org/fact_sheets/amp_stats_cause.html" target="_blank">http://www.amputee-coalition.org/fact_sheets/amp_stats_cause.html "Perhaps, God doesn't work a miracle, if you need an organ/limb to regrow it self after being cut out. I've never heard of any medicine performing this UNIQUE function, that you assert is common in other physical ailments." So if you get your limb cut off God won't heal it back? That's a parallel shift. The question of 'why' still remains. "Or, maybe your asserting that the method of healing is irrelevant? How convenient." Irrelevant? If miracle cures do exist, then I am very interested in them. "Maybe now you'd like to discuss 'transplants'? Which successful transplant operations were invented first? eye, heart, liver, kidney, etcetera, etcetera They weren't simultaneous discoveries." Nott sure where you think you're going here, but transplants are healing done on humans by humans not gods. "Perhaps, next year, a Dr. will discover away to grow a new limb for someone by transplant." Yes, and if it does happen, humans will be regrowing limbs and god still wont be. "Will this question still be so very poignant and provocative? Was it ever poignant and provocative? Maybe it was just 'stupid' and childlike all along. :\" It will be just as poignant and provocative. "stu⋅pid /ˈstupɪd, ˈstyu‑/ [stoo-pid, styoo‑] adjective, -er, -est, noun –adjective 1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull. 2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question. 3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party. 4. annoying or irritating; troublesome Maybe you'd like to take this question off on a tangent? No?" Not particularly interested in too many tangents. Still, it's an odd statement to say to me given that it is in a tangent that you ask it. "Or are we still going to discuss, "Why won't God heal amputees?"" I'd like very much to discuss this question.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob "I find that statement to be either naive or condescending - I can't decide which." It's true. You are asserting that the motive determines the value of the question. Motive is specific to the individual, where as this question can have a value independent of the questioner's motive. "A. You're assuming @zamfir 's motive, same as I am." @zamfir 's motive is irrelevant. The question remains even if someone else said it. It's possible that someone else could raise this point for a diffferent motive. For instance, a faithful Christian could raise the question because they don't think it's fair. Them asking the question would have zero motive to bash their own religion now would it? Moving on. "B. The question is the equivalent to say, taking a walk in the park with my friend, and saying to them, (your Dad appears to love everyone in your family), but "why does he not buy you and your siblings each a car?" No. The question is equivalent to asking why your dad bought his sons car but not his daughters or why he bought his blond children cars, but not his brunette children cars. Your father is not above reproach when what he provides is not distributed to all fairly or evenly along some sort of division. In this case the division is that amputees are not getting any limbs and apparently cancer patients and blind people are getting their cures. Either they are not getting healed by a god or god DOES NOT HEAL AMPUTEES. "It's a 'stupid' question, (and IMO, intended to insult, especially the video)." You'd hate to leave the impression you cared what non-faithful people thought about you or your faith. "1. Perhaps God is not a 'genie' upon which to make wishes, and his miracles are of his choice, invisible, and not like reading a cookbook (i.e. my buddy lost his sight and then he got it back, so it must have been one of God's miracles.)" If a god's miracles are of its choice, and they are not given out with any balance, then a god's judgement comes into question. "2. Or, perhaps he limits his miracles, in the 21st century anyways, to just those individuals who haven't had a limb blown off (i.e., if you retain the organ, like an eye or an ear, 'I, God, may decided to heal it, however, if another person blows it away, I will do nothing.')" 84% of amputees lose a limb due to complications from heart disease. Other diseases like diabetes can cause a dead limb. Not all amputees are getting blown up. "3. Perhaps, its a 'loaded-question' merely intended to annoy the faithful on any level possible." It certainly wouldn't annoy a dignified Christian who proudly proclaims that they don't care what non-believers think about their faith... You suggest a false dichotomy. I pointed out a few extra possibilities that this question could offer value. Beyond that, a question can do more than one thing at a time. So even if the question is intended to "annoy the faithful" it does not mean that it doesn't additionally raise a serious question to be addressed RE: A god's use of infinite power, a god's judgment, and if a god exists at all. "I say, door #3 is the answer." What annoys Christians about this question? "Now, I say to you.... Can you 'prove' my answer wrong?" One does not "prove things wrong." It is illogical to make a negative proof; proofs are always stated in the positive. I.e. - If you believe in a god, and that god created the universe, I don't have to disprove you. I have a responsibility to prove a positive theory contrary to your claim, not opposite yours. There is not such thing as default truth. It's not as if a god gets to be accepted as being real until proven otherwise. That is logically vacant. That standard would never hold up if we were evaluating unicorns and wizards. You can't prove a negative. Try and prove a unicorn doesn't exist? You can't, but it doesn't mean that it's a stalemate on the question or that unicorns are real until proven false. You suggest a false stalemate.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob Dude. I've said as much like three or four times now...
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob Additionally, the objection to the question still confounds me. The question is not out of bounds by any means. If a question of why does god not [fill in blank] is somehow off limits, then I don't know what you're permitted to talk about. Also, the motives are not hidden ordeal. The question is very transparent. It's not like you uncovered something, you went directly to the point of conflict that most people understand with this question. The motive of the questioner and the value of the question are two things that you've erroneously joined.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob I've never once said that proving faith requires proof. Faith is only the medium for your beliefs. Your beliefs still remain unproven. There is a critical difference here.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob Terrible point to make in light of what I told you already about ancient cultures. Answer my question: Did Columbus have a reason to believe the world was round outside of his faith? Yes or no. You've stated that this question is antagonistic, but haven't said why that is a problem. Isn't the nature of a religion antagonistic to the non-believer? What rules are we to play by if your views cannot be challenged? As for why it's important to support your beliefs, this may ultimately be our impasse. I can't make you value consistency or congruency. You don't value evidence, because it is what I have... and you don't and you want to be intellectually on par here. There's no handicap for the course. I'm sorry.
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob I am fully aware of Columbus's religious motives. I don't see the point though. The motives for burning 'heretics' that made similar claims was religious as well. Is Columbus's motive in faith while others motives in faith somehow different only if they turn out right? Doesn't that make the individual the catalyst and not the faith itself? Are you attempting to say that he had no good reasons to believe the world was round outside of faith?
reply
- Feature
- Like
@braxtonrob A preference or comfort from contradiction vice that of congruency is going to make any rational conversation here very challenged. Your statement that "contradiction is so prevalent in so many things" may be true in human behavior, but not in nature. How likely is it that your affinity towards contradiction is due to the fact that you live with it? I mean you told @zamfir quote: "If my most everything I've typed here unsettles you, perhaps you should give serious consideration (for once) to your belief system (or that which you would characterize as a 'non-belief' system.)" Kind of odd that you'd claim that you find your contradictions comforting and then tell another poster that they should consider looking at their views because you believe you've "unsettled" them. what do you perceive unsettles people about your posts? Certainly not the idea that you illustrate contradictions. Basically, I don't believe you. You are contradicting yourself here. I don't believe you find comfort in contradictions either.
reply
- Feature
- Like
