Your opinion is noted.

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Your opinion is noted.

Post #1

Post by William »

2timothy316 wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 5:29 pm
Diagoras wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 4:41 pm [Replying to 2timothy316 in post #364]

Nice analogy. I’m sure we could all come up with similar ones to support our own world view.

The message “turn to God, or there will be trouble” has been re-stated countless times and in countless ways since Christianity began. Deuteronomy 28 might still hold sway over some people, but most now see it for what it is: baseless fearmongering.
Your opinion is noted.
Regarding the phrase;

"Your opinion is noted."

Q: For those who say this within the context of debating, what is meant by that?

It does not in itself present any argument, and is more just a one-liner as far as I can tell.

Q: For those who's opinion is 'noted', what do you make of this type of reply? Is it helpful to the debate or considered to be an Acquiesce?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #31

Post by TRANSPONDER »

2timothy316 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:58 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:34 pm
:) I don't mind what you do or how you think you are approaching the discussion. People are looking to see who has the best case and someone trying to duck, dive, shift the goalposts and finally run away shouting 'I win' will be seen as a loser - just so long as the atheist points it out as such ploys can deceive the unwary. Or that's how I see it and if I'm wrong, no harm done O:) If I am right you just wasted yourself a post.
I can assure you that my interest in these forums are not like yours.

People are not looking to see who has the best case. They are looking for justification for what they believe. They will indeed, duck, dive, shift the goalposts to run away saying 'i win'. My questions is, what did they win that they didn't already have.

If someone thinks I won, great! What did I win? If someone thinks I lost, what did I lose?
Very well. I don't know what's in your mind. I can only wonder why you are here debating at all. Neither you or I know what the onlookers have in their min either. They may be looking for support for what they want to believe but, if so I doubt they'd be here. They's be looking at partisan websites telling them what they want to hear.
For those who are in doubt and want to see the pros and cons argued out, I say: Welcome O:) If they learn something or clarify questions, they have won something. If I learn something myself, I win something. If an opponent sticks to their error, fingers in ears, they lose, even if they don't know or admit it.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #32

Post by TRANSPONDER »

2timothy316 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:55 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:52 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:48 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:31 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:58 pm I can assure you that my interest in these forums are not like yours.

People are not looking to see who has the best case. They are looking for justification for what they believe.
I find it difficult to think folks wouldn't believe what they perceive to be the best case.
Really? Where have you been throughout this pandemic?

If the past year should teach us anything, it is that people will seek what they think is the best case for their beliefs.
Exactly - folks'll set em to what they consider the best case (argument).

So we get one bunch that wears masks and get vaccinated, and another bunch winning em the Herman Cain award.
Best case...who's best case?

So for clarification let me amend my post,
People are not looking to see who has the best case for mankind. They are looking for justification for their 'best case' that serves themselves.

So when opinion enters a debate...I'm done. I lose all interest. Especially when that opinion comes from 'my nurse friend on facebook'.
Your post perfectly expresses the problem with theist apologetics. Not only are they Faith -based so they cannot argue objectively, but they cannot imagine that anyone else can. Now you will perhaps say that atheist apologists have a bias. And you are probably right, but don't forget that a lot used to be Christians and the evidence and logic obliged them to change their minds, so already their 'bias' is based on the 'Best case'. A lifetimer myself, when I argue I have a voice in my head (it's my own, by the way) putting the other side and if there's a sound refutation to any argument that the half my brain puts up I either think that through or drop it.


From what I see, a theist doesn't do that. The idea is to make the Faith -case stand up by any means necessary. And of course, they suppose atheists work the same way. Some do, most don't, because I know they heard the theist apologetics and already know whether there's a response or not.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #33

Post by 2timothy316 »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:21 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:11 pm Debating opinion is...just fruitless.
You present an opinion, and in the same sentence declare debating opinion is fruitless. That's kinda goofy.
Ha! Lets say for a moment that the Bible record is true. That would mean that the last true theocracy was Israel.
Please note, I was referring to calls or attempts to create new theocracies, not to create established theocracies. Think of General Flynn's recent comments here in Murica.
I was referring to ancient Israel. The one were the Bible says that God actually was claiming to be His people. If we assume the Bible is true, Jehovah God had a convenient with one nation. It was what I see as the only true theocracy in history. The Bible says it failed. It was not sustainable because corrupt people kept getting into positions of power. My point is, if a there is a record of nation that actually DID have God looking over it, but yet it still pulled away from the One that gave them everything they could ever want. What chance does a nation such as "Flynn's" Murica stand? There are many nations that claim they have a theocracy but that has no covenant with God and though they say they want a theocracy, they rarely follow the commandments of Jesus Christ. Anyway, this is all off topic. However, it does prove the point that a debate is better when recorded history and facts are used verses someone giving their personal opinion of what they think of the Bible or Israel.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #34

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #32]

An Aside:
From what I see, a theist doesn't do that. The idea is to make the Faith -case stand up by any means necessary. And of course, they suppose atheists work the same way. Some do, most don't, because I know they heard the theist apologetics and already know whether there's a response or not.
I am an Agnostic Theist and have to comment that when you lump my position into this category, you are not seeing clearly enough.

You suppose theists work the same way. Most do, some don't.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #35

Post by TRANSPONDER »

All theists are agnostic old chum. O:) They just think they know. And I have to lump theists together as Faith -based whether they beleive the evidence supports a god (which it doesn') or they don't know or care. All Faith -based.

Now I have to reiterate that irreligion theists are second in love to the atheists whose beef is actually religion as we don't care about a hands -off or deist god. But the fact remains that not knowing whether there is a god or not logically mandates non -belief and to be a theist means taking the illogical, Faith -based option.

If we are both irreligious we are on the same side, but the fact remains, theism is irrational and Faith -based, and so I suspect I may understand your logical and faith - position better than you.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #36

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]
All theists are agnostic old chum.
That is like saying all atheists are culturally christians.
I have to lump theists together as Faith -based whether they beleive the evidence supports a god (which it doesn') or they don't know or care. All Faith -based.
Have to, or want to?

I think that there is a mind behind creation. What about that requires faith?

A Conscious Universe? – Dr Rupert Sheldrake

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #37

Post by TRANSPONDER »

William wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 4:59 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]
All theists are agnostic old chum.
That is like saying all atheists are culturally christians.
Obviously not as some atheists are culturally Muslims, Hindus or Jews
I have to lump theists together as Faith -based whether they believe the evidence supports a god (which it doesn't) or they don't know or care. All Faith -based.
Have to, or want to?[/quote]

Have to - on the basis of how arguments have gone in the past. I'm aware that many believe that their conviction that a god exists is based on evidence, but I am forced to the conclusion that this is only because the Interpret the evidence on the basis of Faith.
I think that there is a mind behind creation. What about that requires faith?

A Conscious Universe? – Dr Rupert Sheldrake
A desire that the universe should be conscious in a way that we humans would recognise, not just a natural physical ordering of matter and energy working. I'm open to the possibility of the cosmos being intelligent is some way but I don't 'think' so just yet because i don't know and neither do you. That's why I an agnostic atheist and you are an agnostic with a belief in an intelligent creator, even if it is a non -religion -related one. I don't mind that you think a conscious cosmic mind is existent, so long as you aren't working for the continued grip of religion of human society, but it is an unjustified beleif on your part, or so I'd argue.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #38

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Pd. Dr Rupert sheldrake, would that be this guy?

(Wiki)Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author,[3] and researcher in the field of parapsychology,[4] who proposed the concept of morphic resonance, a conjecture which lacks mainstream acceptance and has been characterised as pseudoscience.[5][6] He worked as a biochemist at Cambridge University from 1967 to 1973[3] and as principal plant physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in India until 1978.[7]

Sheldrake's morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature"[3][8] and that "natural systems... inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind."[8] Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms."[9][10] His advocacy of the idea offers idiosyncratic explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.

Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been widely criticised. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and inconsistencies between its tenets and data from genetics, embryology, neuroscience, and biochemistry. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances undermines the public's understanding of science.[a]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #39

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #37]

Did you answer my question? I think that there is a mind behind creation.

Q: What about that, requires faith?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Your opinion is noted.

Post #40

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #38]

Who are these critics who also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances "undermines the public's understanding of science?"

Sheldrake appears to explain how science evolved and changed in relation to the cultures the science was being conducted within, and that interpretation of the science varied, depending on which culture was involved...which is why the problem of consciousness cannot be answered where materialism [emergent theory etc] is the cultural filter through which the science is interpreted.

Whereas, scientists interpreting the science through cultures which understood consciousness and the things of the mind, from less materialistic world views, see no such problem.

[The video goes into that in more detail.]

Critics are important of course, but it is hard to assess uncited critique.


.

Post Reply