Oh, I totally agree. We aren’t talking about whether or not someone is correct or incorrect, not anymore. I’m just saying correctness is not the only consideration in a discussion, by a long shot. First things first, the people in a discussion have to agree about why they are having it. If I come for a debate, and get a sermon, I won’t listen or participate- and then the preacher doesn’t get anything either.
Just out of curiosity, do you think a person can successfully argue something they don’t believe? For instance, there are many people who believe in God, but admit that it’s impossible to know (to be correct) whether God exists or not. They often have theistic beliefs, but argue agnosticism whenever they’re in a debate. Does the fact that they don’t know themselves to be correct but believe their views about God to be correct make their skeptical position ((God can’t be proven or disproven, what they argue) but I believe) irrational? Is fiedism irrational?
29,
Remember how I said that not being sure of anything, ever is dangerous psychologically? Well I feel that it’s because there is no dichotomy going on there.
So in regards to your statement about:
I wouldn’t say you can ‘blame’ them per say, but if someone’s brain functions on the basis of -always- being right, I’d say that they punish themselves by the type of convoluted thought patterns which would start to emerge. Mick is a perfect example – they just start to sound insane.
We need checks and balances. Personally I like being totally wrong about something once and a while, it’s sort of invigorating. As it pertains to faith or ‘disputable facts’ I think that most Christians would admit that they learn about their faith, and to learn you must so be wrong in a certain sense.
Again not to pick on Mick, (but to be honest I find him extremely annoying) but he is a perfect example of someone who seems to be stuck in a rather stagnant mental state. No sign of introspection or doubt at all.
This is becoming an increasingly difficult question so I guess I’ll end by saying that although it doesn’t seem it, the only real truths and falsities we experience are our own. We utilize truth-conditions and references to engage in these conversations, but in the end it’s all about taking in data and advancing your own world view. To advance you -must- doubt as flaw is inherent to evolution.
08.19.06.1423
That’s a bold motive to have in a philosophy forum. Good luck.
Speaking of bold though, you defined the “theist” catagory as being exclusively Christian. Don’t you think that’s a bit arrogant? Pardon my comments but it’s an observation I thought was critical to your attempt to catagorize debators as you see them.
Well it maybe a bold move, but it’s a move, a motive just like you have.
I really don’t care what it sounded like. I was simply as you said categorizing debators as I see them, just as you observed me as being arrogant; which Is false. I’m not sure how exactly I defined theist as being exclusively Christian…not sure where you’re going with that. But I will say Thanks for the luck.
Thanks sage. I think you have hit the nail on the head. This is a philosophy forum for genuine debate and discussion. Not a soapbox for scripture quoting christians who think they are right 100% of the time because the bible says so. Lets get back to debating and not preaching.
Oldphil, you are very close-minded. I don’t even think you would know a hammer and a nail if a nail was hammered into you.
Thanks Club29 for proving a point…Christians advocate forgiveness…love thy neighbor etc…You on the other hand refer to driving a nail into me…hmmmm not very christian like.
Just an anology, maybe you should grow up and quit taking things so seriously. You’ve just proven the point I’ve discussed many times as well, so thanks. 
By the way if you’d actually read a post for once instead of making irrelevant additional comments to others who say what you wished you would have said, you’d see this post is about how we all have some motive behind our reason for debating, everyone has at least one motive. I give you sincerity, and you and sage strike back with these misinterpretted rants and assumptions.
08.19.06.1424
Excuse me Club, but what I said was pretty valid. I was making a very important correction to your post. It wasn’t an assumption, it was a consideration that needed to be made. If you’re going to classify people, it should be done with a degree of courtesy.
I’m not trying to be mean (which I’m sure that’s how I’m coming off), I’m trying to help.
What correction was needed? How did I not classify with courtesy? I said this is what i’ve observed, I think I did a pretty decent job.
So atheists and secularists are allowed to soapbox here but not theists?
No one is free from the truth…
Why?
Because we are slaves to knowledge. We think we know, but what is knowledge really? It’s merely someone else’s opinion of what happened. Merely someone else’s opinion of how the world works.
We latch onto the opinions that we think we should agree with… but it’s not truth.
steps off soapbox
Really, Oldphil. How many times have you did a drive by shooting on theism around here with no intentions on coming back to back up anything you’ve said?
08.19.06.1432
I didn’t think I needed to show you the details of your error, but if you can’t see it, that’s okay. Under the “theist” catagory, you prompted at the end the “win souls for god” bit while also capitalizing god. By doing this, you label the “theist” being Christian in your own “observation,” as if only a Christian is a “theist.” Anotherwords, a courteous classification would have to be worded in a universal manner to not single out any one religious belief. That is the correction that needs to be made here. Of course, if you honestly feel that such a thing should be done, then I suppose that would make you appear elitist, close-minded, and even hurtful. However, I know that really isn’t the case here. I know you are an open-minded individual, yes?
By the way… if your purpose for this thread was to win souls for your god, why not then make that the title of your thread? It would have been simple, honest, and forthcomingly noble. You would have a thread titled something like: “Why Christianity is the Truth!” …and then you would present your points for people to read and decide for themselves if they would like you to “save” their soul. Be careful though, given the high skepticism of ILP, it would be wise of you to make key points about proving the existence of your god, souls, and the schema for “saving” them. If you can do this, I’ll gladly read what you have to say. Afterall, a debate must first start with a well documented opinion of a matter. I look forward to your posts!
The point of my thread was motives, not preaching, don’t believe I did that once. I’m so sorry I didn’t say God or God’s or whatever the heck you would have liked me to put. If someone’s feelings are hurt over something like that, I really don’t know how they’re going to make it through life.
I believe in my Master. You belive in Jesus. We both believe in our hearts we are right. 
That’s exactly my point.
08.20.06.1436
Club… you don’t have to be sorry (there’s no reason for a forced guilt trip), just change what you have done. Simple as that. Please re-read the second paragraph of my previous post; I would really be interested in hearing your points on Christianity as a way of merely setting the record straight on your end of the table. However, if you really don’t care about how people feel (given your response), why are you a Christian? Do you feel you’re so right that you don’t mind who it hurts?
Really Club, I’m trying to be very reasonable here… I made my points in my previous post. I want you to present your ideas and have them read. I really do want to read what you have to say. If you can do this, respect for you will grow not just as a rational thinker, but as a good Christian as well on this site. Good luck in your efforts!
Well thank you. No, I care about people’s feelings. But for the sake of this post I didn’t feel it was necessary to use everyone’s beliefs. Yes, some beliefs we’re left out since I left details of a theist out, but my point wasn’t to include all beliefs, my point was for motives and my personal broad generalization of what i’ve seen. All i’m saying is I really don’t see how someone would get ‘upset’ over something like that, I see my beliefs stereotyped and miscommunicated on here at least 80% of the time, but I realize that’s not the topic of the discussion. It’s really aggrevating however to see my beliefs left out constantly and then ridiculed when I defend them, and then called a religious narrow-minded person just because someone disproves of my views. I’m not saying you’re wrong because your not, there are many other theistic, pantheistic views. But like I said I was trying to show motives rather than information.
You know, if it were that easy, any one of us could have done that. However, in this forum, we would have gotten barraged (is that spelled right? sorry) with so many anti-theist remarks and views that our post would ultimately look ridiculous. and besides, that’s just not how you could go about convincing other people - that’s what they are looking for, is some miracle or something. but all we have to give is reason, personal opinions, and information. nothing more.