Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
What Makes A Good Thread On R & S?
89 Answers
If a believers view is expressed on here, the responsive message is, in general terms, "Shut up stupid! Father Xmas & Tooth Fairy. You betray yourself thinking illogically! You are wrong and we are right!"
These sentiments are often accompanied by anything from mild annoyance, to anger.
So, what makes a good thread on here, in your opinion?
Should the atmosphere be like PM's question time in the Commons, or like a social drinking session amongst friends in the local?
Or something else I have not yet covered?
And, if I post a thread, what would make it interesting for you?
These sentiments are often accompanied by anything from mild annoyance, to anger.
So, what makes a good thread on here, in your opinion?
Should the atmosphere be like PM's question time in the Commons, or like a social drinking session amongst friends in the local?
Or something else I have not yet covered?
And, if I post a thread, what would make it interesting for you?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
dr b, For all values attributed to Y, Y when defined by other than the arbitrary is in contradiction to known attributes of existence, ergo Y does not exist. Knowing why three letters arranged in a specific sequence specify an obscure incomprehensible idea with no correlation to really is the necessary process for dismissing the asserted existence of the arbitrary. To know reality is to understand why god can not be and therefore is not a part of it. To know what exists is to know why god defies existence.
God is not the province of science which deals only with that which exists but the province of philosophy which informs us of what does not exist by virtue of that which does through an understanding of the means and methods by which we know it. No use looking for the non/existence of God in the wrong pigeon hole.
God is not the province of science which deals only with that which exists but the province of philosophy which informs us of what does not exist by virtue of that which does through an understanding of the means and methods by which we know it. No use looking for the non/existence of God in the wrong pigeon hole.
If I may digress for a moment to share some thoughts about rudeness.
I beg of you for everyone’s sake to consider the possibility that certain people (and don't exclude yourself at this point) have been, if not merely perceived as, rude in stating their positions and arguments, a charge that has been both levied and denied on both sides.
I hope that this apparent rudeness can be seen as attributable to something other than a debate tactic and hope even more so that it has not been employed for that purpose despite all appearances. It is my sincere hope that this apparent rudeness can be attributable if not in is entirety at least in large part to disparate conflicting views from which a lack of mutual understanding makes such perceptions an inevitable part of the debate. For the purpose if not intent of coming to a meeting of minds which I think is what we're all after, despite all unlikelihood, I think we should avoid the perception of intentional rudeness as much as conceivably possible. I would be sad to see friends part over a misunderstanding of intent.
Something I've learned from participating in this forum is that people can come to similar convictions in a variety of different ways and for vastly different reasons, all of which are important to the respective persons point of view. We should not assume we are enemies simply because we agree for different reasons. But I have strongly suspected for some time that all disagreement is based on some fundamental misunderstanding regarding a common reality.
I now respectfully return you to your regularly schedule programme. Thank for listening . . .
I beg of you for everyone’s sake to consider the possibility that certain people (and don't exclude yourself at this point) have been, if not merely perceived as, rude in stating their positions and arguments, a charge that has been both levied and denied on both sides.
I hope that this apparent rudeness can be seen as attributable to something other than a debate tactic and hope even more so that it has not been employed for that purpose despite all appearances. It is my sincere hope that this apparent rudeness can be attributable if not in is entirety at least in large part to disparate conflicting views from which a lack of mutual understanding makes such perceptions an inevitable part of the debate. For the purpose if not intent of coming to a meeting of minds which I think is what we're all after, despite all unlikelihood, I think we should avoid the perception of intentional rudeness as much as conceivably possible. I would be sad to see friends part over a misunderstanding of intent.
Something I've learned from participating in this forum is that people can come to similar convictions in a variety of different ways and for vastly different reasons, all of which are important to the respective persons point of view. We should not assume we are enemies simply because we agree for different reasons. But I have strongly suspected for some time that all disagreement is based on some fundamental misunderstanding regarding a common reality.
I now respectfully return you to your regularly schedule programme. Thank for listening . . .
Edit of previous post . . .
I beg of you for everyone’s sake to consider the possibility that certain people (and don't exclude yourself at this point) have been, if not merely perceived as, rude in stating their positions and arguments; a charge that has been both levied and denied on both sides.
I hope that this apparent rudeness can be seen as attributable to something other than a debate tactic and hope even more so that it has not been employed for that purpose despite all appearances. It is my sincere hope that this apparent rudeness can be attributable if not in it’s entirety at least in large part to disparate conflicting views from which a lack of mutual understanding makes such perceptions an inevitable part of the debate. For the purpose if not intent of coming to a meeting of minds which I think is what we're all after, despite all unlikelihood, I think we should avoid the assumption of intentional rudeness as much as conceivably possible. It would be sad to see friends part over a misunderstanding of intent.
Something I've learned from participating in this forum is that people can come to similar convictions in a variety of different ways and for vastly different reasons, all of which are important to the respective person’s point of view. We should not assume we are enemies simply because we agree for different reasons. But I have strongly suspected for some time that most if not all disagreement is based on some fundamental misunderstanding, often mutual, with regards to a common reality.
Not that much better . . . was it? ;o)
I beg of you for everyone’s sake to consider the possibility that certain people (and don't exclude yourself at this point) have been, if not merely perceived as, rude in stating their positions and arguments; a charge that has been both levied and denied on both sides.
I hope that this apparent rudeness can be seen as attributable to something other than a debate tactic and hope even more so that it has not been employed for that purpose despite all appearances. It is my sincere hope that this apparent rudeness can be attributable if not in it’s entirety at least in large part to disparate conflicting views from which a lack of mutual understanding makes such perceptions an inevitable part of the debate. For the purpose if not intent of coming to a meeting of minds which I think is what we're all after, despite all unlikelihood, I think we should avoid the assumption of intentional rudeness as much as conceivably possible. It would be sad to see friends part over a misunderstanding of intent.
Something I've learned from participating in this forum is that people can come to similar convictions in a variety of different ways and for vastly different reasons, all of which are important to the respective person’s point of view. We should not assume we are enemies simply because we agree for different reasons. But I have strongly suspected for some time that most if not all disagreement is based on some fundamental misunderstanding, often mutual, with regards to a common reality.
Not that much better . . . was it? ;o)
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
