"A new forum"

Originally posted by PatNovak
Actually, debating irrational ideas is one of the best ways to hone one's debating skills. It helps get a debater accustomed to spotting and countering bad arguments like logical fallacies, and this skill carries over to other more serious debates (kind of like taking batting practice against slow pitching help a batter hit faster pitching). If the argument ...[text shortened]... k or defend ideas that are obviously false can actually be an interesting intellectual exercise.

"Intellectual exercise", bah. I get more of that with a good crossword or sudoku puzzle.

I find debate is like masturbation, it impresses no one but yourself. Maybe that's why I didn't go into Law.

For my own decisions, I find gathering facts and going on a "gut" feeling based on those facts is often-times more successful than "over-analyzing". But then, that's just me. There's a reason I have an "F" in my Briggs-Myers evaluation rather than a "T".

Originally posted by PatNovak
[b]Why would anyone who has thoughtfully declined this gift have a residual need to vigorously defend that decision on this forum?

I am extremely doubtful that his question applies to anyone who has ever been on this forum (or anyone that has ever lived for that matter). This is a question that assumes things that a competent questioner would know ar ...[text shortened]... gift). Thus, this is either an unintelligent or unserious question and is unworthy of response.[/b]

"False assumptions"?

Your assumption that it is false is what is false.

Unintellgent or unserious, it definitely is not.

Unworthy of response? That's *your* decision. But "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Intellectual exercise", bah. I get more of that with a good crossword or sudoku puzzle.

I find debate is like masturbation, it impresses no one but yourself. Maybe that's why I didn't go into Law.

For my own decisions, I find gathering facts and going on a "gut" feeling based on those facts is often-times more successful than "over-analyzing". But ...[text shortened]... that's just me. There's a reason I have an "F" in my Briggs-Myers evaluation rather than a "T".

To each their own. Since you prefer crosswords and Sudoku over debating, perhaps your time would be better spent in a crossword or Sudoku forum, as opposed to a forum that is for "Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."

Originally posted by Suzianne
"False assumptions"?

Your assumption that it is false is what is false.

Unintellgent or unserious, it definitely is not.

Unworthy of response? That's *your* decision. But "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Since you claim this is not a false assumption, it should be easy for you to give me an example of a non-Christian on this forum that matches Bobby assumption (one who believes that they have received an offer of a "personal grace gift of salvation and eternal life" from Jesus, and has "declined" this gift). Please make it a current member if possible, so they can confirm or deny your claim.

Originally posted by PatNovak
I would reply that you have made two extraordinary claims:
1) That you know that such a being exists.
2) That you know specific information about such a being (the being has a name and you know what the name is; that this being is supernatural; that this being has no beginning or end).

I would ask that you provide substantial evidence for these claims (preferably evidence that can be thoroughly tested in a scientific manner).

"doubtful", fine. Pat, if I were to say to you, God exits and has always existed as a supernatural being with no beginning or end, would you reply: Who is God; or what is God; or on the basis of empiricism and rationalism there is no God or god?

Originally posted by PatNovak
I would reply that you have made two extraordinary claims:
1) That you know that such a being exists.
2) That you know specific information about such a being (the being has a name and you know what the name is; that this being is supernatural; that this being has no beginning or end).

I would ask that you provide substantial evidence for these claims (preferably evidence that can be thoroughly tested in a scientific manner).

Your reply succeeds in going off topic by reason of telling me what I have done and then by asking for evidence that can be tested in support of the two numbered sub points you've introduced (having ignored the italicized final sentence above).

Originally posted by PatNovak
To each their own. Since you prefer crosswords and Sudoku over debating, perhaps your time would be better spent in a crossword or Sudoku forum, as opposed to a forum that is for "[b]Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."[/b]

No. Debate is not a proper format for matters of belief. Logic cannot handle faith. Are you saying this forum is for "your way or the highway"? I do not "debate". This does not mean that I cannot participate in "general discussion". That you think that perhaps I should not be allowed to participate simply because I refuse to participate in a format that only offers disadvantage to me really doesn't affect me, but it does show an inherent disrespect for my position. This is what I've said before needs to stop.


Perhaps your time could be better spent disrespecting someone who likes it. Good luck finding someone like that.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Since you claim this is not a false assumption, it should be easy for you to give me an example of a non-Christian on this forum that matches Bobby assumption (one who believes that they have received an offer of a "personal grace gift of salvation and eternal life" from Jesus, and has "declined" this gift). Please make it a current member if possible, so they can confirm or deny your claim.

Pardon me if I failed to read your convoluted post properly. I'm not really used to having to decipher a post before I respond to it. I'm afraid I got your meaning completely wrong. I told you that games of logic are not something I participate in regularly, and so posts that are a morass of logic games I do not do well with.

I assure you that in future I will endeavor to fully understand your posts before responding. This may well result in delay of response unless you suddenly decide you'd rather post in a conversational manner, instead of employing debate "tactics" in a non-debate situation.

Disclaimer: If you find this post disrespectful, welcome to the club.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"doubtful", fine. Pat, if I were to say to you, God exits and has always existed as a supernatural being with no beginning or end, would you reply: Who is God; or what is God; or on the basis of empiricism and rationalism there is no God or god?

Originally posted by PatNovak
[b]I would reply that you have made two extraordinary claims: ...[text shortened]... two numbered sub points you've introduced (having ignored the italicized final sentence above).

You asked me how I would reply to your statement, and I answered, so I don't know how this could possibly be off topic. I would not have replied with any of the three choices you gave me, so it was not possible to pick one of those choices.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No. Debate is not a proper format for matters of belief. Logic cannot handle faith. Are you saying this forum is for "your way or the highway"? I do not "debate". This does not mean that I cannot participate in "general discussion". That you think that perhaps I should not be allowed to participate simply because I refuse to participate in a format th ...[text shortened]... could be better spent disrespecting someone who likes it. Good luck finding someone like that.

I do not "debate".

You debate all the time, as much as anyone on the forum.

This is probably an oversimplification of the threads here, but they basically fall into two categories: theist-only threads and theist vs non-theist threads. I think you will find that I mostly stay out of the theists-only threads.

This particular thread is specifically intended by the OP to be a theist vs non-theists thread, and yet you have waded into the debate. If you really didn't want to debate, and genuinely were only interested in the "general conversation" part of this forum, you would stay out of threads like this one.

Originally posted by PatNovak
You asked me how I would reply to your statement, and I answered, so I don't know how this could possibly be off topic. I would not have replied with any of the three choices you gave me, so it was not possible to pick one of those choices.

Does God exist?

The Most Interesting Man In The World, "Once he gave such a great pep talk, both sides won." God or no God I feel ya. Now, let's spread some love! 🙂

Originally posted by CousinEddy
The Most Interesting Man In The World, "Once he gave such a great pep talk, both sides won." God or no God I feel ya. Now, let's spread some love! 🙂

CousinEddy, how apropos for you to make your first RHP Public Forum post in a thread about the inception of this one. -Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
CousinEddy, how apropos for you to make your first RHP Public Forum post in a thread about the inception of this one. -Bob

Thanks Grampy Bobby. 🙂 I have to admit, I had to look up apropos. I've never seen the term. I inferred closely to what it meant but honestly did not completely know. Glad I learned something. The funny thing is, while I was reading a spiritual writing last night, and as the writing began to intensely resonate with me, the term "apropos" was used. I smiled and knew it was apropos 🙂 (and I was also glad I knew what it meant and could keep fluidly reading along). Anyhoo, just a spiritual wink to ya Mr. Bobby. 😉