Originally posted by FMFi agree, but most came to see spirituality forum as the communication of religious dogma (christianity or dasa), without accepting any kind of contrary opinion, of discussion.
I think the capacity to philosophize is an integral ingredient in the human spirit's capacity for the abstract and therefore essential to any conception of human spirituality. I resist the commandeering of the word "spiritual" to exclude celebration of the human spirit as it is (as I see it), and instead loading the word up only with superstitions, divine beings ...[text shortened]... l the partisan mundane religionist and human spirit-frittering posturing that follows in tow. 🙂
just as the debate forum came to mean mostly US politics.
renaming the spirituality forum into philosophy would, i believe, encourage more diverse topics.
Originally posted by ZahlanziTrue religion is not debatable.
i agree, but most came to see spirituality forum as the communication of religious dogma (christianity or dasa), without accepting any kind of contrary opinion, of discussion.
just as the debate forum came to mean mostly US politics.
renaming the spirituality forum into philosophy would, i believe, encourage more diverse topics.
Only false religion is debatable because it contains many many falsehoods which were conceived by mundane charlatans.
But you would not know this because there is not one person in this forum who know the difference between false religion and true religion.
This is why you band Christianity together with Vedic spirituality/religion. (because you have no clue)
It like banding together football and ping pong.
Originally posted by DasaOr chess and boxing?
True religion is not debatable.
Only false religion is debatable because it contains many many falsehoods which were conceived by mundane charlatans.
But you would not know this because there is not one person in this forum who know the difference between false religion and true religion.
This is why you band Christianity together with Vedic spirituality/religion. (because you have no clue)
It like banding together football and ping pong.
Originally posted by AgergWell, no. I'd ask for a refund on whatever you paid for your Logic classes, if I were you. But you do get the latest FMF award for misdirection and misrepresentation. Congratulations.
So essentially, in your world, NOT conforming to atheist rules on religious debates is for all intents and purposes synonymous with posting crap when it bears relevance to how good a thread is!!
Originally posted by SuzianneAh you want a little bit more detail, ok. You said:
Well, no. I'd ask for a refund on whatever you paid for your Logic classes, if I were you. But you do get the latest FMF award for misdirection and misrepresentation. Congratulations.
So a "good thread" is only those conforming to atheist rules on what a religious debate should be?
Now if we let G denote "good thread", and A denote "conforming to atheist rules on what a religious debate should be" then we can say that you concluded:
G => A .
Still with me? Good, now apply the contrapositive law to get
¬A => ¬G
For the next step, recall what I said initially for you to reach this conclusion
Call me a pessimist but what happens when the likes of Dasa and "friends" are on the case? How exactly can even a good thread be moderated once it devolves into a mud fight? (as is often the case these days)
Letting D denote Dasa and "Friends", and M denote mud fight it should be clear I was implying here that
D ^ M => ¬G.
But now recall that you concluded from this I meant
¬A => ¬G,
and so we have, in your world that
(D ^ M => ¬G) ~ (¬A => ¬G)
i.e. (D ^ M) ~ ¬A,
which is to say:
So essentially, in your world, NOT conforming to atheist rules on religious debates is for all intents and purposes synonymous with posting crap when it bears relevance to how good a thread is!!
You're welcome 🙂
Originally posted by AgergAll logic turns to crap when the "givens" are found to be not true. If you start with crap, you end with crap, no matter how much you try to polish it up.
Ah you want a little bit more detail, ok. You said:So a "good thread" is only those conforming to atheist rules on what a religious debate should be?
Now if we let G denote "good thread", and A denote "conforming to atheist rules on what a religious debate should be" then we can say that you concluded:
G => A [hidden]I.e. good thread implies ...[text shortened]... ]Where Dasa and friends AND mudfight is equivalent to posting crap[/hidden]
You're welcome 🙂
Originally posted by SuzianneWell I think the real issue here is that your initial conclusion didn't follow from the givens - hence we end up with the crap you mention.
All logic turns to crap when the "givens" are found to be not true. If you start with crap, you end with crap, no matter how much you try to polish it up.
2 edits
Originally posted by CalJustPutting aside my scepticism, I'll take this one at face value.
Fascinating!
Btw, what do you do in your day job?
The poem in your profile is a great piece, but it doesn't tell me much about you...
My day job, far away from what I studied at uni (pure maths) is as a software developer (mainly C++ but a few other languages thrown in on the side).
As for the poem, I have yet to write the third (the ending will be a stalemate), but in the words of Larry Wall, it'll be ready by Christmas .
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFPerhaps you do?
Perhaps you feel the need to give him a thumbs down?
It fits your style, alright.
Oh, wait. You only thumb down the people YOU don't agree with, those with differing beliefs from your own.
Never confronting, only slithering around in the background, getting other people to do your confronting for you, always appearing to be "the nice guy" or as "appealing to reason". Please.