Unmoderated subforum. Cross over to the dark side!

Author: Castin

Posts

Total: 62
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Ah, so the real issue is you don't even know what the principle of charity is. Suffice it to say, you aren't adhering to it.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Outplayz
I'll spend my time advocating for anyone i think was unfairly punished. I concede that his posting style could come off as spam, so i think a warning not to do it is justified. If he does come back and continues with said behavior, i agree with punishments. The debate bw us right now isn't really Willows. I know him and that he can be very trolly (which i don't know if i agree deserves punishment if the trolling isn't malicious). We are disagreeing on punishment methods. I think every minor to medium offense should always have a warning before action is taken. Bc these are offenses that some may not know is against the rules. I feel this situation is one of those scenarios. Like i said, i wouldn't have known that was considered spam bc of my way of defining what spam is so i could have even done it. So, in these kind of situations it's good to get a warning. In any case, I'm done with this situation, i said my peace and i feel the situation was handled properly in the end. 
It's worth pointing out that ever since mods were appointed and the CoC went up, warnings before bans on minor/medium offenses are now de facto policy. If I'm reading it right, that is.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Well, I don't think you trying to tear me down for a perceived lack of charity on my part is very charitable, but hey.

I can't say I'm one to take a bite out a turd sandwich and say "yum".

Cry more



drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Well, I don't think you trying to tear me down for a perceived lack of charity on my part is very charitable, but hey.
You're absolutely right. But between the two of us, I'm not the one going around touting how motivated by charity I am.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Well, if you want to use it as an excuse to hate me, go ahead. I am unrepentant.

And I certainly don't hate you, but I'm not going to entertain the idea that The Truth doesn't exist. 
You know, any more than I would entertain the idea that smoking crack was a good idea to my child. 




drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Well, if you want to use it as an excuse to hate me, go ahead. I am unrepentant.
Assuming my motivation is hate isn't charitable. But I guess as long as you don't use naughty words, all the other stuff is ok.

Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Mopac
I don't avoid calling people idiots because it is against the rules. I avoid calling people idiots because it is not a very charitable thing to do.
Debate isn't really about charity. As we all know only too well. But it sounds like you're using the word charity to describe what I would probably call decency or manners instead. Still relatively rare online.

Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Castin
Yeah. I've noticed, and i am happy that there is a good moderation team from what i can tell so far.  
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
I don't think saying "if you want to" assumes anything about your motivations. Denying a crackhead their fix might not seem like love to the crackhead, but that doesn't mean that the one who isn't giving them their drugs is uncharitable. I'm not going to lie to someone and say that denying The Truth is a valid position. 

There is a world of difference between denying The Truth and denying what people attribute to The Truth. If you deny The Truth, you have clearly adopted a loony toons position, and it would be more uncharitable to lie and say this is valid than it would to rebuke it. 

And really, this is all I've ever been doing. This is literally the only reason I'm even here. To point to The Truth. I could be mean if I wanted to, and believe me, it would be a lot more fun for me if I started making fun of people. However, I am not here for my own amusement. I am here to edify. My message is not complicated. A child can understand it, yet someone could spend the rest of their lives meditating on it.

The Truth

Very simple

And I certainly hope for the enlightenment of even those who despise me without a cause.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Castin

Debate isn't about truth for a lot of people either, but that is part of the reason I am here. I'm a one trick pony.
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,222
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@Mopac
As an old spy recently said, we're looking for truth in a post-truth world.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
I don't know what all this nonsense about The Truth has to do with anything at the moment, I'm just calling attention to the fact that you aren't charitable when you said you are. I think if you asked, people would rather hear you use a few naughty words and be spared the sanctimony.

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 559
Posts: 19,865
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mopac
The truth is I am the best.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
I don't claim to be better than anyone, which is why you look insecure to me.

And to be frank, I don't really value your opinion on this, because it is obvious your intent isn't to be edifying, but to tear me down.

Sounds like politics.

And I said that calling people names is not a charitable thing to do, not that I am charitable. So yes, seasoning my words with salt is something that I actively do. I'm sure you'd love for me to be a jerk so you could lord it over me and try to tear me down, which is whatnthis is about.

But I am not trying to tear you down. I want everyone to be built up in their relationship with The Truth.



drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Yeah, I would say a person that says he doesn't call people names because he's so charitable then equates them to drug users because they don't adopt the same philosophical premises as him is sanctimonious.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
You can do better than this.


drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
So can you, buddy. But you choose not to. So why would I be better response to you? You don't have to equate people that disagree with you as drug users. But you do.

To be honest, you lost me long ago when you said:

"So everyone knows deep down that God exists."

Essentially, you're saying that everyone that disbelieves in God is doing so dishonestly. They are either lying to themselves (in denial) or lying to everyone else. The fact is, you don't know what I believe deep down. You can only ever take my word for it. But you don't take people's word for it. You've decided for yourself what I believe. There are few things as condescending as to dictate to other people what their beliefs "truly" are.

The essence of charity is to start off from the basis that other people are being honest and rational, at least within the confines of their own world view. But you don't. You start with the opposite principle, that atheists are being dishonest, irrational, and contradictory, and don't grant them the benefit that they have a world view different from yours that is housed upon different premises.

You've basically admitted (explicitly and implictly through your actions) that you aren't here to argue or debate, you're hear to preach. And I have no respect for that and thus I have no respect for you. I have no inclination to "be better" in my dealings with you.

But you are free to change that.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Surely we can ALL do better.

Everybody knows that there is truth.
The Truth is my God.

I would no more tell my child that it denying The Truth is valid than to say that is good for them to use drugs.

So how am I being uncharitable for refusing to say that good is bad and bad is good? 
You say you don't believe in The Truth, so it stands to reason that your understanding of charity is based on arbitrariness. You don't even believe in charity yourself, so wgat this amounts to is you trying to lord a double standard over me. I think that is plain to see.


But as I have repeatedly said, charity is a grace given, not an entitlement. I am not obligated to be nice to you or anyone. I choose to be, and I'm not going to let you trick me into mocking you so that you can turn it around and use it to accuse me... and believe me, it wouldn't work because nobody here probably cares if I were to put on the war paint and treated my persecuters mercilessly.

But I won't, because whetger you can understand it or not, I love you and want what is best for you. It is not my intent to shatter you to pieces. I want you to find the loving embrace of God.





drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
I'm not going to let you trick me into mocking you
Attributing the motivations of my actions to some form of deception isn't charitable.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Well, that is what it looks like to me.

Are you going to show me charity?



drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Well, that is what it looks like to me.
Right, but being charitable (as you claim to be) would be to assume the best of the other person's intentions, not the worst.


Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
I never claimed that being charitable was a matter of my identity. 

The Truth is not going to be diminished by my or anyone elses shortcomings. 





Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
And for the record, my position has NEVER been that all God deniers and atheists are dishonest. My position has always been that they are theologically ignorant, superstitious due to a poor understanding of the language involved, or fooled by arguments that are contingent on making God something other than what God means, The Ultimate Reality. Certainly there are some atheists that simply don't like the way things are and would rather replace it with fantasy. God knows who those ones are, not me.

No, my position has always been that atheists are ignorant, which is a great deal more charitable than believing they actually understand that their position is "The Truth is a lie! Prove to me that it is true that there is truth! Arbitrary! Arbitrary! Reality is what I can get away with!"

If I really took atheists as understanding what they are saying, why would I even debate them? To inflate my ego? To be smug? I mean, when someone who doesn't believe in truth demands evidence, it is out of pretense because they don't even believe in evidence. They don't believe in The Truth, they believe in personal whim. An arbitrary sense of personal aesthetics.

No, I'd have a lot more fun ridiculing people for adopting a position that is obviously really really stupid. I could after all do what many of these people do and make the really really stupid position a matter of their identity, which would make them really really stupid, instead of potentially smart people with really stupid beliefs. I don't do that. And even if someone is really really stupid, it is not right to make fun of the mentally deficient.

But it is not my desire to tear people down and engage in petty bickering or the exvhanging of insults. My desire is to edify, and maybe even reveal something... that people will even deny The Truth to avoid God.


The 3 poisons that lead to suffering are ignorance, attachment, and aversion. No where is this more obvious than when people persist in denying God even when God is defined as that which must by definition be true... The Ultimate Reality.

So all things considered, I do my best. I hope The Truth shines through, despite my shortcomings. 

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
[M]y position has NEVER been that all God deniers and atheists are dishonest.
Yes it is.

In this post right here, you say "[E]veryone knows deep down that God exists." Necessarily this puts "God deniers and atheists" as being dishonest because their stance is rooted in not believing (and therefore not knowing) that God exists. The only way around this is to admit that (at least some) atheists honestly, innocently, and rationally exist in a state of ignorance of and disbelief in God. You don't grant that.

From the very beginning you poison the well in any attempt to have a constructive conversation or debate about the subject.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Everybody knows that God exists. Not everybody recognizes that as God.


It is written in the hearts of all, and that is even in scripture. Romans 1


Because, as I said. Everyone innately knows there is truth, even if they don't know The Truth is God.


drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Everybody knows that God exists.
I don't.

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
You know there is truth.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
You know there is truth.
Right, but I don't believe in The Truth, as you have described it previously. I also don't believe that any individual truths, or even sets of truths, are dependent on The Truth (previously described), nor do I believe, as a consequence, that this means truths are therefore arbitrary. Simply put, I do not accept, as a premise, that the objective truth of truths requires the existence of some fundamental Truth (previously described) in order to be true.

In short, there is nothing that you have described as being God that is in my system of beliefs, by that name or any other.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
If you believe in truths at all, you must believe in that which is ultimately real. If there is no ultimate reality, there can be no reality or truths. So, I don't think you understand what you are saying. I don't believe you really understand what I'm saying either. In fact, you are offended at what I'm saying, which I find rather baffling.

If there isn't an ultimate reality, nothing is true, there is no such thing as truth. And since we are clearly existing, that really settles the matter quite conclusively. God exists. That is what Ultimate Reality means.





drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
If you believe in truths at all, you must believe in that which is ultimately real.
That's not necessarily true. Yes, truths can be empirically true in the sense that they are accurate statements about physical reality. Not all truths are like this. Some truths are simply true because they are valid inferences from other truths, such as mathematical truths.

I'm going to shy away from loaded terms such as "ultimate reality" because I have found that you load these terms with meaning beyond a generic understanding of the term.

If there isn't an ultimate reality, nothing is true, there is no such thing as truth. And since we are clearly existing, that really settles the matter quite conclusively. God exists. That is what Ultimate Reality means.
If there was no physical reality, then I would agree that there would be no truths that could describe it. But I disagree that these are the only truths that exist, nor do I believe that the existence of a physical reality means a god exists.