I dont’ know who you are talking to, but it could not be me. I never deliberately cut-out any part of your response.
But now that you have presented what you have. The contradiction that occurs from that sentence and your previous I am amazed you have not yet noticed.
People also will try to use any kind of excuse for not continuing a discussion with another.
If you do not want to continue a discussion with me on the sole basis that I did not quote absolutely every word in your posts that I am responding to, then so be it. But, it really is a very weak excuse.
I really wish @Carleas would set up the debate. @anew1 What is wrong? It’s a debate. On a debate forum. It is clearly going to behave like a debate, same as people have had for centuries. You agree. I agree. So, let it happen. You are trying to derail it. You are welcome to join but you say you don’t debate. Then this forum / site isn’t for you.
My original comment was: “No off-topic posts will be added there.”
After several messages, you ended up talking about “off-topic remarks”. Ok, if you believe that you corrected something, then good for you.
The upcoming debate between myself and @TheIllustriousMrCat has a quite common topic between religious and non-religious people (I do not like the terms theists/atheists, but that is how it frequently appears).
The religious usually claim that without God humans have no reference in life, thus no reason to remain alive. It is God which introduces the meaning of life.
I am going to argue against this position, using arguments from materialism and subjectivism.
This is more or less the framework of this debate. @TheIllustriousMrCat , feel free to correct me on that.
Something like that but with lots of reasoning. It will emerge within the debate. Hopefully it will be easier to answer, the last debate was really hard work, l was working to the last minute on most replies l think.
If your net life satisfaction is negative, you generally want to die, if it’s positive you generally want to live. An atheist can have a positive and a theist can have a negative net life satisfaction.
In the strict sense, yes, ethics is the unnatural thing. Before nature was discovered, or invented, everything was considered ethical: the carnivorousness of lions, for instance.
So words and concepts like “art” and “artifice” are superfluous?
Well, it would surprise me if what you claim “is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct” does not turn out to be some monotheism. It usually is.
Well, religions aren’t exactly famous for their rationality, are they…
Obviously! It’s been divinely revealed to you, after all.
I don’t know, have you measured them for their materiality?
LOL Before nature was discovered, or invented, everything was considered ethical.
This kind of shortsightedness is why people have a very narrow or closed perspective of things. All human thinking, including about ethics, is a part of Nature. Thoughts are certainly not apart from Nature, as “self-ligtening” believes.
As always, it depends on how one defines words.
If the word ‘artifice’ is defined in relation to deception, and thus thoughts, then that is not superfluous. Deceptive thinking is just another part of Nature, Itself. Just like art is also another part of Nature, Itself. Again, what human beings think and do is just a part of Nature. Although some of you human beings were taught to believe that human beings are above Nature, there is absolutely nothing at all that is above, beyond, nor apart from Nature, Itself.
You speak as though you believe that you know the Truth of things, and that “monotheism” is not a part of that or your Truth at all.
What is far more irrational is an individual human being’s belief that their own personal interpretation of things is rational or the only true and correct one. For example, you believe religions are irrational. Therefore, to you, all religions must be irrational.
And, you have this belief without yet having ever realised that some stories within the science religions are just as ridiculous as some are in theological religions. Some people in the scientific community are just as religious, believing in things that are not true, as some people are in the theologian community.
Remember, some people in both the theological religion, and in the scientific religion, still to this day believe that the Universe began from something else. Although there is not a single shred of evidence for.
Once more, you are trying your hardest to deflect away from what we were talking about, and away from the mistakes or misinterpretations you have been making.
We ‘were’ talking about when something is found to be True, and how science does not deal with Truth. But, like a lot of people in philosophy forums, instead of continuing to have an open and honest discussion, you also seem to prefer to look for someone with opposing beliefs so you can have a ‘debate’.
I have measured some of them for their weight and shape, which is what ‘material things’ are known to have. Well, at least to some people anyway.
The reason some things can be measured, contrary to what you believe true, material things, and matter itself, actually do exist outside of just concept alone.
I know, and that is why I corrected what you said and claimed.
Does that make any difference?
I added this quote of yours because you previously accused me of something when I did not include ALL of your post.
I know it is quite a common topic.
I even pointed out that it is so common that the same topic has been debated for thousands upon thousands of years, and, as I also pointed out, ‘debating’ that quite common topic has not gotten human beings anywhere over all of this time. But, do not let this fact stop either of you from believing that you will expose the Truth to everyone else
Once again, we have another one who believes that “the religious” only belong on the “theological side” and not on the “scientific side”. It’s like these people have never thought about what the actual Truth even is, really.
This was already obvious.
However, what is just as obvious is ‘arguing’ without producing and providing a sound and valid argument is just a waste of time, which is what I have been alluding to.
Now, if one has a sound and valid argument for their belief and position, then why not just provide it now? After all, obviously, if one has a sound and valid argument, there is not a human being ever who could soundly and validly argue against it.
By the way, your unsound and/or invalid comments and arguments that you are both going to make could already have been addressed, and resolved, by now.
How do you know that’s a he? Age is just better at channeling God (the ‘I’ in all of us), so Age has access to the absolute Truth, the infallible wisdom of God. If you want to be told what the actual Truth is on any topic, ask Age.
