• 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!

[W:1,199]God is Real

Angel said:
If you won't budge on your belief=opinion business, no discussion is possible, which I dare say is just what you want.
Click to expand...

Why would I budge on the definition of what I mean when I say something?
If you refuse to engage with what I am actually saying preferring to try and make strawmen by redefining meanings then you are the one who is in error
So you can run away again but there is no way I am going to let you (someone who has shown themselves to be very dishonest in our interactions) tell me what I mean when I say something
 
Quag said:
Why would I budge on the definition of what I mean when I say something?
If you refuse to engage with what I am actually saying preferring to try and make strawmen by redefining meanings then you are the one who is in error
So you can run away again but there is no way I am going to let you (someone who has shown themselves to be very dishonest in our interactions) tell me what I mean when I say something
Click to expand...
Because your definition is arbitrary and narrow and precludes discussion, which is precisely what you want.
 
Angel said:
Because your definition is arbitrary and narrow and precludes discussion, which is precisely what you want.
Click to expand...

No it isn't arbitrary it is what I meant when I made the statement.
Now if you refuse to engage I will assume it is because you cannot refute what I said and instead are just running away.
What I want is to have a discussion about what I said what you want is to make a strawman
 
My god is real, and he says he hates everyone but me and the few people I care about. Sorry about y'all's luck. :)
 
Quag said:
No it isn't arbitrary it is what I meant when I made the statement.
Now if you refuse to engage I will assume it is because you cannot refute what I said and instead are just running away.
What I want is to have a discussion about what I said what you want is to make a strawman
Click to expand...
Of course it's what you meant in your statement. And I've engaged it -- and so have three others to date, the latest in this thread -- in that I've pointed out its arbitrary and unphilosophical meaning. No discussion of "belief" is possible with someone who picks out one dictionary meaning and won't hear of any other.
 
Angel said:
Of course it's what you meant in your statement. And I've engaged it -- and so have three others to date, the latest in this thread -- in that I've pointed out its arbitrary and unphilosophical meaning. No discussion of "belief" is possible with someone who picks out one dictionary meaning and won't hear of any other.
Click to expand...

1. No discussion is possible of anything if the other person refuses to accept what you mean when you make a statement
2. It isn't arbitrary it is what I meant and it is irrelevant if you think it is unphilosophical

So either you can accept what Im saying or you can run away there is no discussion possible as long as you continue to try and make a strawman
 
Quag said:
1. No discussion is possible of anything if the other person refuses to accept what you mean when you make a statement
2. It isn't arbitrary it is what I meant and it is irrelevant if you think it is unphilosophical

So either you can accept what Im saying or you can run away there is no discussion possible as long as you continue to try and make a strawman
Click to expand...
You're doing #1 with me and my suggestion that we use the philosophical concept of belief.
If your choice of "belief=opinion" is not arbitrary, explain why you choose it rather than other recorded definitions in the dictionary.
 
Angel said:
You're doing #1 with me and my suggestion that we use the philosophical concept of belief.
If your choice of "belief=opinion" is not arbitrary, explain why you choose it rather than other recorded definitions in the dictionary.
Click to expand...

No I am refusing to let you define what I mean, as it is my statement it is impossible for me to be doing that with you
I choose that because it explains what I am trying to express.
 
Angel said:
Of course it's what you meant in your statement. And I've engaged it -- and so have three others to date, the latest in this thread -- in that I've pointed out its arbitrary and unphilosophical meaning. No discussion of "belief" is possible with someone who picks out one dictionary meaning and won't hear of any other.
Click to expand...

Philosophical meanings are no less arbitrary than commonly accepted meanings.
 
Quag said:
No I am refusing to let you define what I mean, as it is my statement it is impossible for me to be doing that with you
I choose that because it explains what I am trying to express.
Click to expand...
What you express by your exclusive synonymy belief=opinion is inaccurate, for one. For two, you are refusing to let me define what I mean by misinterpreting my statements according to your narrow arbitrary definition.
 
devildavid said:
Philosophical meanings are no less arbitrary than commonly accepted meanings.
Click to expand...
Only someone unread in philosophy would say such a thing. The prime mandate of philosophy is the analysis of concepts.
 
Angel said:
What you express by your exclusive synonymy belief=opinion is inaccurate, for one. For two, you are refusing to let me define what I mean by misinterpreting my statements according to your narrow arbitrary definition.
Click to expand...

1. No it isn't
2. Of course I am refusing to let you redefine the meaning of what I said. It isn't arbitrary it is what I meant when I said it
You are trying to make a strawman why would anyone let another persons tell them what they mean when they say something?
 
Quag said:
1. No it isn't
2. Of course I am refusing to let you redefine the meaning of what I said. It isn't arbitrary it is what I meant when I said it
You are trying to make a strawman why would anyone let another persons tell them what they mean when they say something?
Click to expand...
What you said was said as a judgment of what I said, of my arguments.
 
Angel said:
Only someone unread in philosophy would say such a thing. The prime mandate of philosophy is the analysis of concepts.
Click to expand...

Once again with the ad hominem.

Philosophy has no prime mandate. And even if it did, philosophical analysis does not produce anything definitive. It is no different than any other human endeavor.
 
devildavid said:
Once again with the ad hominem.

Philosophy has no prime mandate. And even if it did, philosophical analysis does not produce anything definitive. It is no different than any other human endeavor.
Click to expand...
Once again with the misuse of Latin.
You don't know what philosophy is.
 
Angel said:
What you said was said as a judgment of what I said, of my arguments.
Click to expand...

Originally that is true but you didn't want to discuss whether or not your premises were beliefs you wanted to discuss the validity of my statement in general.
You even started a thread on it. Either way we would still be using my definition of the terms as we are discussing my statement.
 
Quag said:
Originally that is true but you didn't want to discuss whether or not your premises were beliefs you wanted to discuss the validity of my statement in general.
You even started a thread on it. Either way we would still be using my definition of the terms as we are discussing my statement.
Click to expand...
No, you are misrepresenting the case. Let's look to the record:

Angel said:
Quag and the Angel: a dialogue

GwWZxzA.jpg
​


Quag and Angel have mutually agreed to meet here in the Philosophy forum to discuss their philosophical differences in their proper place, instead of derailing threads in other forums. (See the quoted exchange at the bottom of this thread starter.) All members of DP are invited to join them in this enterprise.

Among the topics to be discussed are:

1. logic and argument
2. morality
3. the existence of God

All philosophy begins with a question. Following Quag then (See his post below), the first question addressed in this thread is:

What is a belief and what is its role in argument?​
Click to expand...
 
marke said:
Truth, on the other hand, is not ambiguous, not contradictory and not subject to whim or bias.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And there is a whole group of people who claim their God's existence is a truth, and none have sufficient evidence, other than old storybooks of course. You might as well claim Harry Potter's existence is a "truth".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom