Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 15, 2018 13:29:28 GMT
Arlon: This is another in the long list of flaws you see in others, but not in yourself though you certainly do the same thing, or in this case worse. That is a very serious and dangerous personality flaw. If this were real life authorities would be alerted.
This being the case then please show where I have personally insulted, or worse, you on this thread. Otherwise my point about your tactics in debate stands.
Arlon: My understanding of, and relationship with, divinity does not require your comments. Perhaps you should only comment on things you understand.
No, honestly: JC is most understandably seen in anthropomorphic terms since, well, scripture consistently frames him as human, with human traits & etc in its narrative. You can look this up, Christian or not. Whether or not this is 'only commendable to children' as you suggest is another matter.
Arlon: my religious beliefs are my own concern and I have never troubled you with them. I have no plans to start troubling you with them at the moment.
By not answering such a simple question, given what you have revealed in previous threads, and in effect denying your faith to serve the purposes of your current argument, does not create a favourable impression. Jesus would be proud of you. It reminds me of your similar reticence in conveniently not being able to say how old the cosmos or the earth is. Ah well.
Another personal insult. Another instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
Arlon: You speak from ignorance of science. That I do not concur with your notions of science in no way indicates my stance on any religion.
No, I speak from a distinct memory of your stance on previous threads, where you consistently criticised the notion of a purely natural cause in favour of a deliberate supernatural. And you do not come across as a deist. At least I am up front and honest with where I stand. The suspicion is that you avoid making such clarifications for fear of embarrassment and having to face awkward questioning.
Arlon: You are obviously not following well at all. I can define words and have always said so.
Really? Is that why you told me earlier, without qualification that "I have told you there is no such definition of any word."? I see.
Arlon: That is an obviously dishonest attempt to avoid presenting any criteria. Try again.
Look back at what I said, just previously, by way of distinguishing between definitions and criteria and then come back to me again. Just because many people cannot agree on something experienced does not mean that they do not have, or cannot have an idea of what it is, or indeed how it can be assessed. One is reminded of the moment in a Supreme Court trial in 1964, based around a test of obscenity, where the judge said exactly that: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.." I hope that helps.
And none of this alters the fact that it is still a fallacy to think one can conceive ethics through inferences from what is "natural", for example "it is natural and best that that women should stay at home with the children and let men be the breadwinner" etc.
Arlon: And there's more to come.
And knowing that, I shall naturally give it the level of attention it fully deserves.
Then why make the point that "science ...has no definition of good and cannot obtain one" in the first place? I don't know either. Unless it is just another arlon-sequitur by way of distraction