26 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are not the JWs or Jews who died in that war. If I had to make an evaluation of what *you* would do in WW2 based upon the information you have presented to us within this thread I would be irrational to assume you would put other humans before the decrees of God_{Robie Carrobie}
so why did you call me a coward, tell the forum again Agers, why am i a coward? because i dont want to talk about the holocaust because its an emotive subject, tell the forum Agers, why you called me a coward? is it because i refuse to lie to help save others, why then did members of my religion die saving others Agers, i would have acted in the sa ...[text shortened]... that cowardly
I think the forum can see, to you, its just a joke.
your welcome, in advance
That is to say, I'm confident *you* wouldn't lie to save another human. This is not a statement or an evaluation of any person other than you - that person being the human behind RedHotChess.com alias: Robbie Carrobie.
You are cowardly not only in this respect (indeed that's not the way I meant it) but the way you evade my and other posters questions when you don't have a worthy response - for example Andrew Hamilton above, Lausey, Zahlanzi, me, and no doubt anyone else who chould challenge you here or elsewhere. You are bankrupt of any integrity in this spirituality forum as a debater.
Now please kindly fetch those quotes I asked you for and let the forum decide for themselves I really am the morally repugnant fiend your words suggest.
26 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by josephwBecause I assert that conveying information which is false is sometimes for the greater good, and need only find one counter-example to demonstrate the universal claim "lying is always wrong" is not true. I invite you to read through this thread and pull apart, in detail, anything I or others who champion this view have said which rests upon dubious grounds.
Originally posted by Agerg
I'm sure not only Robbie Carrobie holds that lying is always bad (because the Bible says so); my question is why???
Why do we [b]have to lie in the first place?[/b]
I have provided three examples in the OP, other examples have been provided by others as the thread evolved, there is a link to a thread where I offered another. Feel free to shoot them down.
26 Jan 11
4 edits
Originally posted by Agergsorry i did not hear that, could you speak up, i am a coward because i do what? evade the posts of others? so it was nothing to do with the Gestapo and helping others, that was just a mere coincidence despite the fact that you mentioned it specifically, yet when pressed upon it, you are now denying it. I do not want to talk to Mr Hamilton as he has expressed an abhorrence of spiritual things, i have not avoided Zhalanzi posts either, in fact, even when he has insulted me i have replied, nor can i think of one instance where i have failed to reply to lausey. Making your claim ludicrous and an utter lie, but that's what we have come to expect from you Agers, lie heaped upon lie and fabrication heaped upon mere fabrication.
You are not the JWs or Jews who died in that war. If I had to make an evaluation of what *you* would do in WW2 based upon the information you have presented to us within this thread I would be irrational to assume you would put other humans before the decrees of God_{Robie Carrobie}
That is to say, I'm confident *you* wouldn't lie. This is not a statement o ...[text shortened]... et the forum decide for themselves I really am the morally repugnant fiend your words suggest.
Whether my creditability as a debater is bereft I could not care less, for i like to discuss spiritual things, with a spiritual content, preferably Biblical, of which you know practically next to nothing , and yet here you are, pontificating to me, about what i know and what i do not? Does that not strike you as deluded, it does to me.
Calling someone a coward, with specific reference to a holocaust analogy, when you know that its an emotive issue, members of his religion having suffered in it, is morally repugnant, whether you try to slither away from it or not.
26 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwI'm sure not only Robbie Carrobie holds that lying is always bad - Joseph
Originally posted by Agerg
I'm sure not only Robbie Carrobie holds that lying is always bad (because the Bible says so); my question is why???
Why do we [b]have to lie in the first place?[/b]
Indeed Joseph, but they never took the time to actually find out, they were too busy heaping straw men upon straw men and making up stupid and contrived analogy's in an effort to bolster their own egocentricities!
26 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...you termed the Bible, if my memory serves me correctly as, 'religious crap', did you not? ...”
you termed the Bible, if my memory serves me correctly as, 'religious crap', did you not? It relates to the content of your post to the extent that i am willing to make a reply, i thought that was obvious, silly me.
that was two weeks ago and in a totally different thread, not this thread. Why are you suddenly bringing that up right now?
Is it because you don't you want to ever answer my question? My question has nothing to do with the Bible nor “religious crap”, just your opinion on the occasional usefulness of the hypothetical -can it be sometimes useful in arguments?
26 Jan 11
Originally posted by Agerg"Because I assert that conveying information which is false is sometimes for the greater good,.."
Because I assert that conveying information which is false is sometimes for the greater good, and need only find one counter-example to demonstrate the universal claim "lying is always wrong" is not true. I invite you to read through this thread and pull apart, in detail, anything I or others who champion this view have said which rests upon dubious grounds.
...[text shortened]... ad evolved, there is a link to a thread where I offered another. Feel free to shoot them down.
But why? Why do we have to lie to save a life?
26 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is simply because I wish to discuss spiritual things, of a spiritual nature and you are averse, by your own admonition.. You also in your comments termed it moronic that anyone should not want to look at hypothetical scenarios, it being stifling to the imagination, or words to that effect, which set a tone i wished to avoid. Never the less, I agree, however there is a difference between a hypothetical scenario used to determine if such is so, and contriving hypothetical scenarios specifically intended to bolster the point you are trying to establish.
“...you termed the Bible, if my memory serves me correctly as, 'religious crap', did you not? ...”
that was two weeks ago and in a totally different thread, not this thread. Why are you suddenly bringing that up right now?
Is it because you don't you want to ever answer my question? My question has nothing to do with the Bible nor “religious crap ...[text shortened]... on on the occasional usefulness of the hypothetical -can it be sometimes useful in arguments?
It may interest you to note that the Bible is full of hypothetical scenarios used to establish some excellent points, the parables of Christ immediately come to mind. Its nothing against you personally Mr Hamilton, I just want to discuss spiritual things, indeed, i really think its best if i just stick to biblical principles and their dissemination, but one gets caught up in these fruitless debates!
26 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...and contriving hypothetical scenarios specifically intended to bolster the point you are trying to establish ...”
It is simply because I wish to discuss spiritual things, of a spiritual nature and you are averse, by your own admonition.. You also in your comments termed it moronic that anyone should not want to look at hypothetical scenarios, it being stifling to the imagination, or words to that effect, which set a tone i wished to avoid. Never the less, I agr ...[text shortened]... biblical principles and their dissemination, but one gets caught up in these fruitless debates!
I take that as a “yes” answer to my question i.e. you agree that considering the hypothetical can occasionally be useful. Cheers 🙂
26 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwI see where this is going josephw, you're going to try and frame this discussion in terms of our so called departure from the formulation of god as held true by yourself.
[b]"Because I assert that conveying information which is false is sometimes for the greater good,.."
But why? Why do we have to lie to save a life?[/b]
That's an entirely different discussion but even if we grant it as being a true account of the way things are - for arguments sake - that does not detract from the fact that in the world we live in there are, and have been nasty people who want to kill others if they happen to know their intended victims are nearby; and sometimes the only way of stopping this is to tell them there aren't any nearby - even if this isn't a true statement.
26 Jan 11
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonyes, but dont you think there is a difference Andrew, between establishing a hypothesis to evaluate the elements of a proposition and to test its validity and contriving a hypothetical scenario to prove a point that you want to prove?
...and contriving hypothetical scenarios specifically intended to bolster the point you are trying to establish ...”
I take that as a “yes” answer to my question i.e. you agree that considering the hypothetical can occasionally be useful. Cheers 🙂
26 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyes, the two are different. Did I deny this?
yes, but dont you think there is a difference Andrew, between establishing a hypothesis to evaluate the elements of a proposition and to test its validity and contriving a hypothetical scenario to prove a point that you want to prove?
26 Jan 11
4 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI don't necessarily think there is a difference. If the statement you're trying to prove is that (for all x in X, P(x) is true) is false then you can search for as many counter-example as you wish until the cows come home - you need only show that there exists one case for which the universal statement doesn't hold and you're done!
yes, the two are different. Did I deny this?
To that end with x being some lie, X being the set of all things humans can say, and P(x) being this lie is bad, a number of plausible scenarios have been offered.
26 Jan 11
Originally posted by Agerg“...I don't necessarily think there is a difference. ...”
I don't necessarily think there is a difference. If the statement you're trying to prove is that (for all x in X, P(x) is true) is false then you can search for as many counter-example as you wish until the cows come home - you need only show that there exists one case for which the universal statement doesn't hold and you're done!
To that end with x being ...[text shortened]... ans can say, and P(x) being lies are bad, a number of plausible scenarios have been offered.
agreed 🙂