• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Understanding Religion

Angel said:
Objective study and pure guesswork are antagonistic concepts. And we are acquainted with subjectivity by way of our own subjectivity, not through objective observation and study, as you suggest.
Click to expand...

We objectively identify what subjectivity is. Otherwise, subjectivity means nothing. I can't subjectively define what subjective means.
 
devildavid said:
We objectively identify what subjectivity is. Otherwise, subjectivity means nothing. I can't subjectively define what subjective means.
Click to expand...
You've stopped making sense. This often happens when we stick to our guns when the guns are empty.
Reload.

Namaste
 
Angel said:
You've stopped making sense. This often happens when we stick to our guns when the guns are empty.
Reload.

Namaste
Click to expand...

Once again when you have no response you resort to snark.
 
devildavid said:
We objectively identify what subjectivity is. Otherwise, subjectivity means nothing. I can't subjectively define what subjective means.
Click to expand...
So, in other words, we not influenced by personal feelings/opinions identify what influenced by personal feelings/opinions is?? There's absolutely no way to influenced by personal feelings/opinions define what influenced by personal feelings/opinions means??


Angel said:
...
Click to expand...
I agree. His post doesn't seem to make any sense...
 
gfm7175 said:
So, in other words, we not influenced by personal feelings/opinions identify what influenced by personal feelings/opinions is?? There's absolutely no way to influenced by personal feelings/opinions define what influenced by personal feelings/opinions means??



I agree. His post doesn't seem to make any sense...
Click to expand...

Ah, and here we invoke the logical fallacy of equivocation, because suddenly you change definitions for the term objective. Previously, you defined objective morals as morals that are true despite what people think/feel about it, and here you are define in as not influence by personal feelings/opinions. Which is it? They are two distinct meanings. Use one meaning or the other.
 
RAMOSS said:
Ah, and here we invoke the logical fallacy of equivocation, because suddenly you change definitions for the term objective. Previously, you defined objective morals as morals that are true despite what people think/feel about it, and here you are define in as not influence by personal feelings/opinions. Which is it? They are two distinct meanings. Use one meaning or the other.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what equivocation is... My language has been very clear about what I mean... Sure, I've used slightly different wordings of the same thing at different times, because I don't copy and paste my responses, but the meaning I'm conveying when I speak of objectiveness is all the same...

subjective is "just a matter of personal opinion" (the source is one's own mind) while objective is "regardless of personal opinion" (the source is external to one's own mind)
 
gfm7175 said:
I don't think you understand what equivocation is... My language has been very clear about what I mean... Sure, I've used slightly different wordings of the same thing at different times, because I don't copy and paste my responses, but the meaning I'm conveying when I speak of objectiveness is all the same...

subjective is "just a matter of personal opinion" (the source is one's own mind) while objective is "regardless of personal opinion" (the source is external to one's own mind)
Click to expand...

that isn't what you are doing. You are using different definitions for the same word.. .. and that word is 'objective'. The one that you repeated now is 'source of one owns mind', and was consistent with most of your posts. Your previous post used the 'unbiased and unemotional' definition, which is a different meaning for the word objective. You switched back and forth.
 
Understanding religion, as the title of this thread suggests, is a sine qua non in any criticism of the religious point of view, gentlemen. You'd do well to take this advice to heart.


Namaste
 
Angel said:
Understanding religion, as the title of this thread suggests, is a sine qua non in any criticism of the religious point of view, gentlemen. You'd do well to take this advice to heart.


Namaste
Click to expand...

Understanding the make believe is not essential in pointing it out where it is found.
 
devildavid said:
Understanding the make believe is not essential in pointing it out where it is found.
Click to expand...
Boasting about the lack of understanding of close-minded criticism neither rehabilitates it nor redeems it. Horse manure is horse manure whether stepped in or shoveled.
 
The Famous Fallacy-Monger Fallacy​
RAMOSS said:
Ah, and here we invoke the logical fallacy of equivocation, because suddenly you change definitions for the term objective. Previously, you defined objective morals as morals that are true despite what people think/feel about it, and here you are define in as not influence by personal feelings/opinions. Which is it? They are two distinct meanings. Use one meaning or the other.
Click to expand...
And what we have here, of course, in the quoted post, in its umpteenth iteration across many threads, is The Famous Fallacy-Monger Fallacy.
The Famous Fallacy-Monger Fallacy only became "famous" with the advent of the Internet and the rise of IT comment and chat.
Before that it was merely The Fallacy-Monger Fallacy, and was largely restricted to backyard barbecues and bars.
 
Angel said:
Boasting about the lack of understanding of close-minded criticism neither rehabilitates it nor redeems it. Horse manure is horse manure whether stepped in or shoveled.
Click to expand...

And you are quite adept with a shovel.
 
devildavid said:
And you are quite adept with a shovel.
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the concept of "Boss Kean's Ditch," devildavid?

eluI0HM.jpg

"What's your dirt doin' in Boss Kean's ditch?"

Discussing religion with militant atheists is like that.
 
Angel said:
Are you familiar with the concept of "Boss Kean's Ditch," devildavid?


"What's your dirt doin' in Boss Kean's ditch?"

Discussing religion with militant atheists is like that.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with real life?
 
devildavid said:
Are you familiar with real life?
Click to expand...
What kind of question is that? I ask you if you know something about a legendary movie, and you ask me if I know something about real life. What's your deal? Do you or do you not know the movie?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom