Page 124 of 140 FirstFirst ... 2474114120121122123124125126127128134 ... LastLast
Results 1,231 to 1,240 of 1397

Thread: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

  1. #1231
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,129

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    Quote ptutt said View Post
    Possibly if receive a diagnosis that I have a mental illness and cannot determine reality. This could explain and counter my personal experience and perception of the world and God's presence.

    I think primarily the basis for belief in God is within.
    Right, so its faith?

  2. #1232
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    240

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    Quote Spearthrower said View Post
    What a truly amazing non-response to the post you quoted.

    What happened to all the other bits of my post you cited? You know, like acknowledging that you just demanded we abandon logic to give you a free pass?

    It's that kind of behavior which doesn't result in good things for you or anyone.

    No, your assertion is NOT accepted as historical fact, and you asserting the position then, when challenged, asserting it is historical fact and this just looks like bullshit.

    Next up, regardless of whether you think something is too dumb to entertain is not really an issue - there are plenty of dumb things you've made other people entertain. In fact, the majority of things you've written here could fall firmly under that heading - so perhaps you could try and give a little back?

    Finally, I will fucking believe what I like, whether you give me permission or no. What you need to do, though, if you want me to accept your assertions about reality is provide evidence to support your claims. Can't do that? Consider them rejected.

    So let's look at what you originally wrote:




    Setting aside the arrant hubris here, you don't get to demand that your assertions are correct and that other people are history deniers because they don't genuflect to your assertions. That's not a very pleasant method of interaction at all.

    If you want to make a point about anything other than your subjective feelings, its your fucking responsibility to support your claims. You certainly don't get to paint people as deniers when its you not doing the fucking legwork.

    If you don't get how this is crossing the line of honest discourse, then I once again question whether that moral compass of yours you speak so highly of is actually a functioning compass at all.
    Here's 3 historical references to Christians being persecuted for their faith. There are many more, but they shouldn't be needed.

    1. Tacitus (109 A.C.E)
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_A...us)/Book_15#44

    Tacitus states that Nero put the blame for the fire of Rome on the christians because they were hated by the people.

    "...an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

    So you've got Christians explicitly chosen to be ripped apart, crucified and burned alive...but people converted from Judaism because they were cowards. Makes sense.

    2. Pliny the Younger details trials for Christians in PLINY'S LETTER TO TRAJAN. If they refused to denounce their faith they would be executed.
    http://www.vroma.org/~hwalker/Pliny/Pliny10-096-E.html
    "...I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed."

    3. Stephen's Martyrdom and great persecution. Acts 7-8

  3. #1233
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    240

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    Quote pipbarber said View Post
    Right, so its faith?
    Depends what you mean by faith. Here, people will say it is belief without evidence. However, my view of faith is that it is an extrapolation of evidence that takes you to belief, a point of practical acceptance despite uncertainty. Humans could not operate in this world without belief as nearly all (if not all) our interactions involve varying degrees of uncertainty.

    I would say that the personal experience is the primary evidence for belief in God.

  4. #1234
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    2,364

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    Quote ptutt said View Post
    No, you didn't say that morality has evolved, you said improved.
    I first said it in post 1069.

    Without actually using the word “evolve” I also made several points about the changing of morals over time in post 1094.

    Again, without using the word “evolve” I referred to morality being understood through new learning in post 1189.

    In post 1197, I expressly stated that morality evolves. In fact, what I said was “I contend that what is considered moral evolves over time as we as a race learn stuff.”

    In fact, it was you who asked me if morality had improved, in post 1215, just yesterday.

    In reply to that question, I said, “Of course morality has improved – at the very least we as a species now accept that the whole planet shouldn’t be killed off for not following arbitrary rules”: Post 1218

    You are misquoting me or misrepresenting the context of the quote. I do not respect that. Please apologise.

    Quote ptutt said View Post
    The difference being is improvement implies movement towards a goal, whereas evolve just implies change
    “Improvement” is defined as: “a thing that makes something better or is better than something else.” I have no idea where you get your definitions from. Anyway, your whole thinking is flawed here. I think the fact that humans now understand that slavery, raping your enemies' daughters and killing children in the name of religion are immoral means morality has improved. Don't you?

    Quote ptutt said View Post
    So are you moving away from saying morality has improved?
    Not at all.

    Quote ptutt said View Post
    How do you use "wisdom" to measure moral actions?
    Again with the quote mining. Why is that apologists always resort to this?

    My exact quote was: “The collective wisdom of tens of thousands of years of information and understanding.”

    To answer the question – which I have repeatedly done over the entire thread – I will refer you back to one of my comments (in post 862 and dated 2 August 2016) when I answered your question about caveman Bob and caveman Barry.

    I respectfully suggest that you now admit that you have failed to prove that morality is objective.
    Last edited by Stubby; 16th March 2017 at 12:13 AM.
    "Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet. Make your contribution and you'll get a better seat" - Metallica, Leper Messiah

  5. #1235
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I live in hope.
    Posts
    5,935

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    You must have intellectual potential, ptutt.

    You hardly deserve it.

    I'll recommend Homo Deus, a Brief History of Tomorrow, 2015.

    'Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense and understanding.'
    Martin Luther
    Wars begin in the minds of men.
    The UNESCO motto, in Enlightenment Now, the Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress, Steven Pinker, 2018.

  6. #1236
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Pretoria, South Africa
    Posts
    415

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    Quote ptutt said View Post
    Depends what you mean by faith. Here, people will say it is belief without evidence. However, my view of faith is that it is an extrapolation of evidence that takes you to belief, a point of practical acceptance despite uncertainty. Humans could not operate in this world without belief as nearly all (if not all) our interactions involve varying degrees of uncertainty.

    I would say that the personal experience is the primary evidence for belief in God.
    My personal experience is the primary evidence for non-belief in god.
    The fact that our personal experiences lead us to different conclusions should make you question why god would do that?
    Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so. Ė Robert A. Heinlein

  7. #1237
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toontown, in the Bible Belt.
    Posts
    7,418

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    Quote ptutt said View Post
    Depends what you mean by faith. Here, people will say it is belief without evidence. However, my view of faith is that it is an extrapolation of evidence that takes you to belief, a point of practical acceptance despite uncertainty. Humans could not operate in this world without belief as nearly all (if not all) our interactions involve varying degrees of uncertainty.

    I would say that the personal experience is the primary evidence for belief in God.
    So, A,B, therefore Z? Please clarify if that's how you're going. (Include accounting for confirmation bias, if you can, just to be helpful.)

    I've been down that road, ptutt. Some of the longer-established posters here are aware of how I became a believer, and what followed.
    EJB

    Iím not one of the dead ones yet. - Ms Fishie.


  8. #1238
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    3,129

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    Quote ptutt said View Post

    I would say that the personal experience is the primary evidence for belief in God.
    ...therefore, why on earth are you attempting to justify that belief through reason and the machinations of physical reality?

  9. #1239
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,170

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    Quote pipbarber said View Post
    ...therefore, why on earth are you attempting to justify that belief through reason and the machinations of physical reality?
    It's quite common for delusional people to have a firm understanding that the outside world works according to the inner machinations of their heads, when they are in this condition it is pointless trying to argue with them because their understanding of reality tells them that other people who don't think like them are the delusional ones. They don't usually try and argue other people into thinking the same as them.

    When the delusion starts to break down is when they start arguing with other people. I suspect in a few years ptutt will be around somewhere arguing against the very same points he is using to support his position, he's not as delusional as a devout believer, whether he agrees with that or not is irrelevant, at the moment it's simply not possible for him to think like that.

    The true believers come here, spout nonsense and when they find they are having no effect quote scripture until they get told to stop or get banned, then they leave and never comeback, ptutt is still here, he's a waverer, he argues because he is not sure, not because he is sure.
    From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"

  10. Like button wolty, pipbarber, Strato liked this post
  11. #1240
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Toontown, in the Bible Belt.
    Posts
    7,418

    Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

    Quote stevebrooks said View Post
    It's quite common for delusional people to have a firm understanding that the outside world works according to the inner machinations of their heads, when they are in this condition it is pointless trying to argue with them because their understanding of reality tells them that other people who don't think like them are the delusional ones. They don't usually try and argue other people into thinking the same as them.

    When the delusion starts to break down is when they start arguing with other people. I suspect in a few years ptutt will be around somewhere arguing against the very same points he is using to support his position, he's not as delusional as a devout believer, whether he agrees with that or not is irrelevant, at the moment it's simply not possible for him to think like that.

    The true believers come here, spout nonsense and when they find they are having no effect quote scripture until they get told to stop or get banned, then they leave and never comeback, ptutt is still here, he's a waverer, he argues because he is not sure, not because he is sure.
    (My boldage)
    I wouldn't make any claim to be a mind-reader, but I do hope ptutt has the drive to "examine all things", like his sourcebook says.

    Indeed, I suggested ptutt check out confirmation bias, because that (along with a condition that sideswiped my critical thinking faculties somewhat) was foundational to my belief.

    The "two or more ... gathered in my name" meme is, in itself, a call to mutual reinforcement of confirmation bias.

    Luckily, I wound up alone, realising just how alone I was.
    EJB

    Iím not one of the dead ones yet. - Ms Fishie.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •