|
|
Post by movieliker on May 15, 2020 17:57:46 GMT
I've never had anybody question, complain or criticize my beliefs who impressed me as really knowing religion. [my emphasis] Such a sweeping assessment of anybody who takes an opposing view to you probably says more about you than it does them, and inevitably reminds one of Arlon's talk, just recently, of those required "people who are actually religious and scientific". Have you ever been to Scotland? The Socratic method is the asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. I am sorry it didn't work for you. That's very kind of you but it wasn't a matter of imagination. Listen filmflaneur, all this board is, is people sharing thoughts, feelings and opinions. I'm sharing my experience. What kind of statement is that to make after somebody shares their thoughts, feelings, opinions or experience? What makes you think your thoughts, feelings and opinions are any more valid than anybody else's? Sounds like you and goz graduated from the same school --- "Narcissists Are Us". If you already know everything, why are you bothering to ask any questions at all? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 18:05:12 GMT
Such a sweeping assessment of anybody who takes an opposing view to you probably says more about you than it does them, and inevitably reminds one of Arlon's talk, just recently, of those required "people who are actually religious and scientific". Have you ever been to Scotland? The Socratic method is the asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. I am sorry it didn't work for you. That's very kind of you but it wasn't a matter of imagination. Listen filmflaneur, all this board is, is people sharing thoughts, feelings and opinions. I'm sharing my experience. What kind of statement is that to make after somebody shares their thoughts, feelings, opinions or experience? What makes you think your thoughts, feelings and opinions are any more valid than anybod else's? Sounds like you and goz graduated from the same school --- "Narcissists Are Us". What do you expect when, apparently, nobody you ever come up against has ever really known religion - either through thoughts, feelings, or opinions? Since I freely acknowledge I know very little for sure, especially where the proposed transcendental is concerned, then that is exactly why I need to ask - and why the response of the one who 'really knows' was disappointing. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 15, 2020 18:23:20 GMT
Listen filmflaneur, all this board is, is people sharing thoughts, feelings and opinions. I'm sharing my experience. What kind of statement is that to make after somebody shares their thoughts, feelings, opinions or experience? What makes you think your thoughts, feelings and opinions are any more valid than anybod else's? Sounds like you and goz graduated from the same school --- "Narcissists Are Us". What do you expect when, apparently, nobody you ever come up against has ever really known religion - either through thoughts, feelings, or opinions? Since I freely acknowledge I know very little for sure, especially where the proposed transcendental is concerned, that is exactly why I need to - and why your response was disappointing. I hope that helps. For someone who claims they know very little, you act like you know a lot, I'm qualified. Possibly more than anybody else here. I'm 61 years old. I grew up in a religious family with priest and nun members. I went to religious schools requiring religious study --- grammar school, elementary school, high school, and college. I was an alter boy. I also studied philosophy in college. I've been a believer, an Atheist and an agnostic. I'm a sociable person who has always had many people to talk with. I live in New Orleans. A city with a vibrant night life. I drove for Uber and Lyft servicing people from all over the world. I also have my own business which requires me to do customer service. And talk with endless amounts of people. I've spent countless hours on the Internet discussing religion. Other than being a priest myself, I don't know what more I could do to improve my qualifications. (Actually wearing a cassock could limit the free flow of opinions out of respect for the position.) But you --- having admitted you know very little --- repeat the accussation that you don't think I'm qualified. Geez . . . |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 18:39:12 GMT
What do you expect when, apparently, nobody you ever come up against has ever really known religion - either through thoughts, feelings, or opinions? Since I freely acknowledge I know very little for sure, especially where the proposed transcendental is concerned, that is exactly why I need to - and why your response was disappointing. I hope that helps. For someone who claims they know very little, you act like you know a lot, On the contrary, I have just told you I know how limited is my knowledge, while you will find it hard to find much in any of my postings where I announce what I know. And yet a simple question-and-answer session seems to be beyond you... Please quote where I have said you are 'not qualified', more than implying the arrogance of deciding who 'really knows' religion (it being you, naturally) - which is near enough a Scotsman. It's an impression increased by this sudden need to relate your life story, to justify a sweeping opinion about everyone who has ever disagreed with you. But even so, only one of the above experiences might be a relevant professional achievement or qualification, assuming you passed the college level. It might be noted that in general, most of the above, or similar, could be claimed by quite a few of those here. (Since this has come up, you may wish to know that I studied philosophy under Antony Flew and others at Reading University in 1980 as part of a joint degree, and I too speak to a range of people, as part of my current job as a bookshop manager,went to Sunday School, enjoy a good night out and so and so on - not that that makes me necessarily right, or you necessarily wrong. I am of course handicapped in this discussion by never having driven a taxi cab..) Geez indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 15, 2020 18:52:45 GMT
For someone who claims they know very little, you act like you know a lot, I'm qualified. Possibly more than anybody else here. I'm 61 years old. I grew up in a religious family with priest and nun members. I went to religious schools requiring religious study --- grammar school, elementary school, high school, and college. I was an alter boy. I also studied philosophy in college. I've been a believer, an Atheist and an agnostic. I'm a sociable person who has always had many people to talk with. I live in New Orleans. A city with a vibrant night life. I drove for Uber and Lyft servicing people from all over the world. I also have my own business which requires me to do customer service. And talk with endless amounts of people. I've spent countless hours on the Internet discussing religion. Other than being a priest myself, I don't know what more I could do to improve my qualifications. (Actually wearing a cassock could limit the free flow of opinions out of respect for the position.) But you --- having admitted you know very little --- repeat the accussation that you don't think I'm qualified. Geez . . . So . . . What is this? Confirmation that you are a troll? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 19:02:18 GMT
So . . . What is this? Confirmation that you are a troll? No, a slip of the finger. With all your qualifications you ought to have seen that.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 15, 2020 19:28:26 GMT
So . . . What is this? Confirmation that you are a troll? No, a slip of the finger. With all your qualifications you ought to have seen that. I initially thought that could be what happened. But I waited 15 minutes and you didn't correct it. So . . . Now what's your explanation? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 19:31:01 GMT
No, a slip of the finger. With all your qualifications you ought to have seen that. I initially thought that could be what happened. But I waited 15 minutes and you didn't correct it. So . . . Now what's your explanation? The fact that I replied properly some while ago. Or are you not qualified enough to scroll up?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 15, 2020 19:52:59 GMT
For someone who claims they know very little, you act like you know a lot, On the contrary, I have just told you I know how limited is my knowledge, while you will find it hard to find much in any of my postings where I announce what I know. And yet a simple question-and-answer session seems to be beyond you... Please quote where I have said you are 'not qualified', more than implying the arrogance of deciding who 'really knows' religion (it being you, naturally) - which is near enough a Scotsman. It's an impression increased by this sudden need to relate your life story, to justify a sweeping opinion about everyone who has ever disagreed with you. But even so, only one of the above experiences might be a relevant professional achievement or qualification, assuming you passed the college level. It might be noted that in general, most of the above, or similar, could be claimed by quite a few of those here. (Since this has come up, you may wish to know that I studied philosophy under Antony Flew and others at Reading University in 1980 as part of a joint degree, and I too speak to a range of people, as part of my current job as a bookshop manager,went to Sunday School, enjoy a good night out and so and so on - not that that makes me necessarily right, or you necessarily wrong. I am of course handicapped in this discussion by never having driven a taxi cab..) Geez indeed. I think you are an idiot filmflaneur. You are disagreeable, dismissive, offensive and insulting. This inspite of claiming you know little to nothing about religion. You claim to be here hoping to learn. Word of advice --- don't be judgemental, disagreeable, dismissive, insulting and offensive when trying to learn from those who know more than you. It will hamper any efforts you have to hopefully learn anything. Maybe take a course on conversation etiquette and effectiveness. You need it. You moron. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 20:25:09 GMT
. You are disagreeable, dismissive, offensive and insulting. This in spite of claiming you know little to nothing about religion. A wise man is he who knows how little he knows. But does the above mean that only those who 'really' know best about religion can be disagreeable, dismissive, offensive and insulting? If so, you come self-recommending it seems. That's why I was asking questions at the start. See how it works? Even after reading your un-requested life story I am not convinced you would necessarily know more than me or indeed a good many here - although one imagines that your levels of credulity are probably higher. The irony is that all of the faults you so readily attribute to me are have been more discernible in yourself: someone who judges and dismisses all of his interlocutors as asses, becomes increasingly disagreeable and who now ends up with personal rudeness. Insults are not arguments, although it is understandable why many believers ultimately feel the need to fall back on them, as here - attacking individuals, rather than the points. And with it you now just sound tetchy. Since such rudeness and personal attacks are all you offer now, I will leave you to the tender mercies of others on this thread. But thank you for playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 15, 2020 21:23:51 GMT
Such a sweeping assessment of anybody who takes an opposing view to you probably says more about you than it does them, and inevitably reminds one of Arlon's talk, just recently, of those required "people who are actually religious and scientific". Have you ever been to Scotland? The Socratic method is the asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. I am sorry it didn't work for you. That's very kind of you but it wasn't a matter of imagination. Listen filmflaneur, all this board is, is people sharing thoughts, feelings and opinions. I'm sharing my experience. What kind of statement is that to make after somebody shares their thoughts, feelings, opinions or experience? What makes you think your thoughts, feelings and opinions are any more valid than anybody else's? Sounds like you and goz graduated from the same school --- "Narcissists Are Us".If you already know everything, why are you bothering to ask any questions at all? Thanks for the heads up whilst I was asleep! ALL this curfuffle over something you could easily have fixed after I gave you some VERY good advice back on Page 11 of this thread. I will repeat it here. Had you done this, backed down a tad and been a little more conciliatory, you would NOT have had to give us your life history, you would NOT have had to call people derogatory epithets and we could have had a better discussion, because we would have understood each other better. Let's face it. The issue here is that YOU made a sweeping statement about everyone you ever knew who criticised religion, didn't know nor understand about religion. That is patent nonsense and you really should back down and admit your error.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 15, 2020 22:50:36 GMT
Nope
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 15, 2020 23:12:37 GMT
What do you expect when, apparently, nobody you ever come up against has ever really known religion - either through thoughts, feelings, or opinions? Since I freely acknowledge I know very little for sure, especially where the proposed transcendental is concerned, that is exactly why I need to - and why your response was disappointing. I hope that helps. I also studied philosophy in college. You studied philosophy in college and never heard of the JTB definition of knowledge? How is that even possible? Was your study limited to only Christian/scholastic philosophers or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 15, 2020 23:13:07 GMT
OMG, man! Where have you been?! I haven't seen you in ages! Welcome back, if indeed you're back!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 15, 2020 23:18:23 GMT
Then let me refresh your memory: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/3934911/thread "Truth" is the correspondence between map (belief) and territory (reality). Science has proved better at making the former reflect the latter than any other discipline out there. That doesn't mean there can't be other truths that aren't found by strictly following the scientific method, but then it's about evidence and reasoning, which you are always in short supply of. Saying "most scientists agree" is an appeal to expertise/authority, not population. When most experts agree on a given subject, that's very much evidence of the truthfulness of that subject, because that's implied in the nature of expertise. Populations agreeing don't mean much because general people are generally ignorant of whatever subject it is they're hypothesizing about. Even direct, eye-witness accounts are highly likely to be wrong, and can be easily influenced by others in a way that doesn't happen in peer-reviewed science. and ad verecundiam are fallacies too, Adolph. You should thank me for not using those since religious people are more successful. I didn't bring that up first though. Appeal to authority is only fallacious when one uses tries to use it deductively, ie, to insist that something must be true merely because experts believe it; or when the experts are irrelevant to the subject being discussed. Literally no philosopher, logician, or debate coach would say that citing relevant experts in an inductive argument would be fallacious. If that were so, there would be no point in citing experts in academic papers. What's more, nobody would ever be able to learn anything from experts who know more than they do about a subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 15, 2020 23:25:55 GMT
OMG, man! Where have you been?! I haven't seen you in ages! Welcome back, if indeed you're back! Thanks. Guess I'm back, at least until they let me go back to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 16, 2020 0:12:22 GMT
I also studied philosophy in college. You studied philosophy in college and never heard of the JTB definition of knowledge? How is that even possible? Was your study limited to only Christian/scholastic philosophers or something? He already said that when he claimed how 'Christian' his education was. LOL He clearly cannot have it BOTH ways!
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 16, 2020 0:16:00 GMT
I also studied philosophy in college. You studied philosophy in college and never heard of the JTB definition of knowledge? How is that even possible? Was your study limited to only Christian/scholastic philosophers or something? No, I don't remember studying that. But this was over 40 years ago. Maybe I forgot. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 16, 2020 0:23:23 GMT
You studied philosophy in college and never heard of the JTB definition of knowledge? How is that even possible? Was your study limited to only Christian/scholastic philosophers or something? He already said that when he claimed how 'Christian' his education was. LOL He clearly cannot have it BOTH ways! I'd think that even in a Christian college philosophy course they'd cover JTB version of knowledge. Plenty of apologists educated in philosophy (like William Lane Craig) refer to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 16, 2020 0:23:36 GMT
You studied philosophy in college and never heard of the JTB definition of knowledge? How is that even possible? Was your study limited to only Christian/scholastic philosophers or something? No, I don't remember studying that. But this was over 40 years ago. Maybe I forgot. Fair enough.
|
|
