| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Junior's Theses of Religious Debate; do's and do not's of internet religious debate. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 20 Sep 2010, 07:55 PM (1,027 Views) | |
| Junior | 20 Sep 2010, 07:55 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I know I don't really have the authority to make sticky threads, but I felt like there needs to be an informal guideline system for those generations of godlimitationers to come. You guys can pitch me ideas, as this is an online community. 1) Having more people cheering you on than the other guy doesn't mean you're right. 2) Grammar doesn't necessarily negate a point. Don't be the first to point out grammatical errors. 3) People do crazy things in the names of religion. Just because you're a member of said religion doesn't make you a monster. 4) Unlike Grammar, being a total wad does negate the point. Don't belittle people. Like I've said, suggestions are welcomed. Hopefully this won't bomb like the rest of my threads. |
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
| cheesebug | 20 Sep 2010, 08:17 PM Post #2 |
|
Ultimate Threadkiller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A. Is this about your feelings being hurt in the "i dont believe in god" thing? B. IT WAS ONCE C. I't's not a thread so it won't bomb
|
|
http://masochistic-goddess.tumblr.com/poetry "You will hear thunder and remember me, and think: she wanted storms." | |
![]() |
|
Luemas
|
20 Sep 2010, 09:08 PM Post #3 |
![]()
DELICIOUS!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think some of these just involve common sense, no offense. As in, within any specific group there are any number of deviations, that are specific to a singular person, not the group. Unless it's Scientology. That's just kind of my pet peeve of stereotypicism. Even though I make fun of it, all the time. |
|
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably. | |
![]() |
|
| Junior | 21 Sep 2010, 04:34 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah, and what's the one thing online debaters lack?
not really, I have pretty tough skin. |
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
| cheesebug | 21 Sep 2010, 07:41 AM Post #5 |
|
Ultimate Threadkiller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well then okay, what sparked this mini thread, eh? Just the lack of discipline between some debaters?
|
|
http://masochistic-goddess.tumblr.com/poetry "You will hear thunder and remember me, and think: she wanted storms." | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 21 Sep 2010, 09:32 AM Post #6 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My comments on these (since you asked): 1) yes, naturally. 2) a) Grammar doesn't negate a point as long as there is enough grammar to make out what the point is. b) Pointing out poor grammar is not an argument. It is either irrelevant to the discussion or essential for clarification. 3) Obviously not, just like being a Nazi in Germany during the war does not make you a bad person by default. 4) Don't belittle people, sure. - But being a wad is equally irrelevant to the argument as grammar. Finally: Why are these theses about "religious debate" and not simply "debate"? |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Junior | 21 Sep 2010, 02:28 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It actually started when I was watching Richard Dawkins being a "total wad" to the Pope. Sometimes we need a little order. Being a total wad is American slang for being a very nasty person. Not a wad as in a wad of paper. Welcome to America. This is a religious forum, no? |
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 21 Sep 2010, 02:44 PM Post #8 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Junior:Thanx, but the speaker's degree of nastiness does not have any impact on the truthfulness of what he/she's saying either. It just makes it less likely that those who react negatively to that will agree with the speaker. yes, but we also discuss other things on here and the rules of arguments are the same no matter what topic is discussed. (Also, I do find it funny that rules of debate spark so much debate themselves) |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 22 Sep 2010, 03:09 PM Post #9 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh and I just saw the pope-video. I agree with what Junior said except for the "wad" part
|
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 26 Sep 2010, 10:55 AM Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
Not really Concolor- This is a Christian forum the rules for "debate" come from the Christain founders of the forum regardless of what they choose to permit it to digress to.... also according to you there are no such things as logical absoulutes but it sounds awefully like you are stating one right there .....trying to say there are .....well at least your "abstract contruct" of rules fpr arguement.....personally ensuring there isnt religious intolerence isnt a subject I find funny Its also important to have a thread like this because sometimes rules are stated that sound O.k but are not really part of the rules say-for instance a typical Concolor/ARAZEC disscussion.. Quote: ARAZEC Well you do -except when you do it its called -a theroy or a paradox
You do know that a theory and a paradox are entirely different things, right? My point is that when we have empirical data to build upon we construct a theory, but when there is little or no data there is no reason to say that we have any knowledge about it *in the example above i made an observation about something not actually witnessed something to do with evolution earlier I think and in Concolors response he is referring to my claim to knowing God thru having a relationship with God as you can see Concolor is asserting that I have no reason to say I have any knowledge about it because his own rules for disscussion are that empirical data is required when the rules do not state that at all so its a bit deceicving ..... |
|
|
| Rose | 26 Sep 2010, 02:45 PM Post #11 |
|
Zombie
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree with all what you said... when people are aware to that, it should probably make threads better... Maybe you can suggest keeping the thread's subject relevant as much as possible... as in, not changing the subject and keeping the thread as relevant as possible to its main idea. That could also include the grammar part. (although I think it's okay to comment about that as long it is not meant to be offensive or to change the subject.) And also- about 3, maybe you can also just say: don't assume the people who write here ( & when they don't troll I guess) are monsters. From any reason, not only religion. And about what Cheesebug said... er. since I started that thread... well... obviously I did not mean to offend anyone, or even to be right (let's say that I asked hard questions, and I am looking for acceptible answers- that I actually know religion should have and I guessed it could be found here). Still, I am really sorry if it did offend anyone. It was not its point. At all. |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 26 Sep 2010, 04:20 PM Post #12 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: Yes Yes, not from Junior. This is Junior's thread for discussing religious debates. My question to Junior was why he specifically chose to discuss "rules for religious debates", as if there were different rules for religious and non-religious debates. I've never said that. I'm just saying I see no reason to assume that there are logical absolutes. Ah, then I have not phrased myself good enough. I'm talking about the commonly established rules for rational discussion; it's a result of common agreement on how to best ensure that the conclusions reached are sensible. It's like standing in line: It's not the only way to do it, but it's what we have agreed on as a society (in my parts of the world) to be the best solution for distributing certain goods. There are other ways of doing it but they are not called "standing in line". There are other ways of discussing things, but they are not called "rational discussions". I can see humor and beauty in most things. Also I meant funny as in "ironic" not as in "haha" funny. That's because I was treating it as a "rational discussion". Also, Junior is not trying to establish what these rules are (as far as I interpret him): He's trying to suggest new guidelines/rules to make sure debates are more harmonious. I had some feedback to his suggestions. If you want to discuss debates between you and me you're most welcome to do so, but I would suggest discussing it in the thread they are in. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Junior | 26 Sep 2010, 05:57 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
STOP IT! JUST STOP IT! YOUR FIGHTING IS TEARING THIS FAMILY APART! Anyway, are we going to bicker or is there anything to actually add to the list? |
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
| cheesebug | 26 Sep 2010, 09:27 PM Post #14 |
|
Ultimate Threadkiller
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
........Don't get into random off-topic/personal debates... p1-cheese is a good example of jesus p2-cheese sux p1-its actually really healthy p2-sure but its fattening p1-ya, but its healthy fat p2-healthy fat? explain p1-well i mean our bodies need some fat p2-nuh uh anorexics dont die p1-yes they do you reatard p2-nope, a lot survive w/out fat p1-we still all have a little fat, even them p3-I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT JEZUS |
|
http://masochistic-goddess.tumblr.com/poetry "You will hear thunder and remember me, and think: she wanted storms." | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 26 Sep 2010, 11:55 PM Post #15 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@Junior: A) Yes, we are going to bicker I've given you my input to your points, so unless you require more clarifications I've basically done my part.
|
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




.gif)
.....well at least your "abstract contruct" of rules fpr arguement.....
I've given you my input to your points, so unless you require more clarifications I've basically done my part.

6:42 PM Jul 10