Evangelising young children

[BeRational]

Are you telling the truth?

Yes are you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes are you?

I am yes.
If you are telling the truth I look forward to your posts now being philosophical naturalistbollocks free and debating with you as a fellow and different type of theist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An interesting point here about the validity of experience, which has been made before, but I am old and repetitive.   If someone experiences a reciprocal relationship with God, this gets top marks, and is pronounced valid, I suppose.  However, what about Jim who doesn't?  His experience is also valid, isn't it? 

In other words, the avenue of personal experience seems to be a cul de sac.

Cul-de-sac as opposed to throughway to what Wiggs?

[BeRational]

I am yes.
If you are telling the truth I look forward to your posts now being philosophical naturalistbollocks free and debating with you as a fellow and different type of theist.

But this destroys your method.

Are you not concerned about that, or does truth not interest you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But this destroys your method.

Are you not concerned about that, or does truth not interest you?

No, You sent a message out to God and found the magical Kevin....That is clearly more of a success than a failure.

Unfortunately for you, you have to be a Kevinist for ever or expose yourself as self confessed deluded or an apostate or a liar about your encounter in which it will become obvious whether the truth interests you.

You would have missed that because of your....how does Nearly Sane put it?................Vlad Obsession.

[wigginhall]

Cul-de-sac as opposed to throughway to what Wiggs?

I thought you were going to show a throughway to the supernatural.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought you were going to show a throughway to the supernatural.

I'm sorry but I think the supernatural to be a bollocks concept defined by the original bollocks concept, Nature.

[Sebastian Toe]

I cannot say.

You just did in #256, didn't you?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry you've lost me. When you talk about method you seem to be talking about science........have you got that right?

And then you seem to be talking about the limits of science while insisting on science being the final arbiter of everything. That seems contradictory.

Unless of course you mean compliance with science is the cast iron standard for any method?
A final
Please enlighten.

I appear to have lost you because you are making stuff up about what I've said. At no point have I  said, implied,or hinted at science being the final arbiter if everything.  Indeed, i have written precisely the opposite on this and many other threads. I have no idea why you do this as it stifles debate. Please stop lying about what I have written.  Please retract the lying about what I have written.

[jeremyp]

Yes.....so where would that put claims that he looks on those occasions when he chooses to appear like a small irish chap dressed in Green?

Of at least secondary interest I would have thought.

True but is it worse than choosing to appear as a two-a-penny apocalyptic preacher or a bush that is on fire?

[Nearly Sane]

I'd agree with you for the atheists here, but not at ExposingReligion or Exposing Religion (note the space) on Facebook, both being places I have been banned for asking questions that none of you lot would get upset about. The other place I can't remember. As I say, I was only there for two questions.

Facebook groups like that are there for a big group hug. I have had similar issues with the various incarnations of Heterosexual Awareness Month on Facebook

[bluehillside Retd.]

My apologies for not letting people know that I wasn't going to be around for a couple of weeks. If anyone left a question for me Ill be pleased to respond however. If not, can I assume that there's just been more of Vlad's relentless reinvention of words and terms to suit his purpose followed by his out-of-hand dismissal of his own straw men?

Plus ça change as I heard no-one say in La Belle France...

   

[Nearly Sane]

My apologies for not letting people know that I wasn't going to be around for a couple of weeks. If anyone left a question for me Ill be pleased to respond however. If not, can I assume that there's just been more of Vlad's relentless reinvention of words and terms to suit his purpose followed by his out-of-hand dismissal of his own straw men?

Plus ça change as I heard no-one say in La Belle France...

 

You might want to have a look at the Formal Debate


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?board=28.0

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You might want to have a look at the Formal Debate


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?board=28.0

Thanks for posting this. I'll have a look, but to be frank any attempt Vlad makes at debating anything is so bedevilled by his remorseless re-invention of language to suit his purpose that it's probably not worth the effort. The only way perhaps would be to post first a glossy of what the various terms he abuses actually mean and to insist that he stick to their meanings thereafter. He's so heavily invested in straw men versions of "philosophical materialism", "atheism", "scientism" etc however that I can't see him doing the decent thing so late in the day.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Thanks for posting this. I'll have a look, but to be frank any attempt Vlad makes at debating anything is so bedevilled by his remorseless re-invention of language to suit his purpose that it's probably not worth the effort. The only way perhaps would be to post first a glossy of what the various terms he abuses actually mean and to insist that he stick to their meanings thereafter. He's so heavily invested in straw men versions of "philosophical materialism", "atheism", "scientism" etc however that I can't see him doing the decent thing so late in the day.

There is some quite good stuff on the comments section around the whole question of definition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

There is some quite good stuff on the comments section around the whole question of definition.

Thanks again for the steer. There are 70+ posts there so it's a lot to wade through, and it seems that Vlad hasn't (or has just ignored them) because some of his straw man re-definitions here post date some of the corrections there. You noticed earlier here I see that he flat out lied about your position - oddly in much the same way that Dryghten's Toe (a sort of Vlad with "O" levels) did about me a while back when he suggested that I thought that only phenomena that had been demonstrated to exist do exist. 

That's what I find so frustrating sometimes - any debate or discussion is impossible when one party just makes up his own meanings for words and term, mis-ascribes them to his interlocutor and than attacks them. I can't tell you how many times for example I've explained to Vlad that "philosophical materialism" means, "the material is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable" with no comment whatever on anything else that might be, yet time and again he goes quiet for a bit and then repeats his "it means that you think that the material is necessarily all there is or can be" nonsense.

I used to think that is was just misunderstanding, but the corrections have been ignored so often that I've concluded that it's deep dishonesty borne of an investment in bad thinking that he cannot bear to back away from.     

[Brownie]

I was wondering yesterday if you were on holiday, blue.  Good to see you back, hope you had a good time.
We are in status quo, as you will see (apart from the aforementioned Formal Debate section).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Brownie,

I was wondering yesterday if you were on holiday, blue.  Good to see you back, hope you had a good time.

I did indeed, and thank you.

We are in status quo, as you will see (apart from the aforementioned Formal Debate section).

Do you mean that we agree that just making up new meanings for words so as to suit your argument is bad form? If so, then yes - we do agree about that. 

[Brownie]

  That wasn't what I meant but, yes, it is  (wouldn't mind making up some new words though).