Lets be fair, perhaps BIC needs to frame his
answers properly. Equally, people who participate in this
discussion should not take everything as a personal attack or have
an egg-shell personality.
There are a few forumners that can actually make more reasoned
and sound discourse. For example u got Alize, Fugazzi,
AEN and a very minority few.
And I am sure all of them can go on and on about who is right
and why. I am sure they can spew out master pieces of forensic
oratory, full of great perspicacity and considerable dialectic
adriotness. But really.. I mean, it’s like arguing who has the best
seat during a live performance.
In a civil discourse, if you are going to criticise a school of
thought, look to its highest expression and criticise it. If you
take Christian claims as propositions that have a comic book ring
to it(See Susanteo topics and Jacky Woo posts as examples), how are
u supposed to then have your answer if any answer at all that comes
out your mouth be taken any seriously right ? In order to refute
something, you must interpret it first because the claims you make
in your refutation will only be as nuanced as your
interpretation.
And as for BIC’s psychology, I cannot comment.
Becasue even if I say he is satan’s servant,it does not ascertain
to any truth at all of his psychological makeup. And I will just be
feeding this train of hate that is out of control and running out
of tracks.
Unfortunately there is nobody to chair and regulate the debates.
And topics like these always spiral out of control and becoming a
debate on the existence and non-existence of God. Which in my
honest personal opinion is just… unintelligent.
I just think that not many people here apply critical thinking,
and many just have not reached the intellectual maturity to accept
certain propositions to be true. Some are going to get offended by
this but I would be lying if I were to say that all of us here have
equal standing not just in intelligence, but also in experience. So
perhaps more readings and understanding would help in an overall
endeavour to participate in this kind of debate. Because in the
real world in real life, your credentials will be at stake, your
honour and your integrity. And if you cannot measure up online, you
will not make if far offline.
Everyone should just sit back and chill for a while now.
1. If any of my answers are not framed properly, it would be
appreciated if such can be pointed out and maybe I can review and
reframe them.
2. I have my strong reservations concerning Fugazzi being more
reasoned and sound in his discourse though, but that's a side
issue.
3. You are spot on concerning the failure to interact with the
right interpretations. So often it can be shown that atheists are
simply knocking down strawmen or waxing lyrical about their
own caricatured ideas of Christian beliefs.
4. It is unfortunate that often discussions on such topics
spiral out of control, mostly due to trollish behaviour of some
people. But to be sure, debate on the existence of God is anything
but unintelligent. In all philosophy text books this topic often
get addressed. Numerous books and public debates have taken place
on just this topic alone. But you are right, what may be required
is someone who is mature enough to moderate discussions of
such topics.
5. I completely agree with you on the lack of critical thinking
in the forum. I suppose this is a reflection of our education
system that teaches more rote learning (to pass exams) than really
equipping people with the mental tools and logical skills to deal
with life's issues.
7. And I can't agree more that those who are emotionally
attached or affected by this discussion take some chill time
off.
