How do you know you're right?

[edward82]

How do you know that what you believe is right? Can you? Is it possible to know? To answer 'you can't know' seems to be threatening to many, even to myself, and especially to those who say, "you don't need to know, that's why its called faith" (who are ironically the same people who define faith as being sure of things hoped for. Being sure.... is that not knowing?).

Why is it so hard to say for us to say 'you can't know'? Maybe because our entire well-being is totally contingent upon our belief structure. It has been said, "Theology is the discipline that orders life."

However, most people don't answer 'you can't know' because they believe that you can. Most people believe they know truth because they learned it, reasoned it, felt it, or read some set of Holy Scriptures. The funny things is: it's the same story across the board. The Americanized Christian has the same argument as the Shaolin priest in Japan. Everybody thinks they're right. I guess it would be pretty scary if they didn't know the truth.

So here are the options:
1) knowledge of the truth is possible, which makes a lot of people wrong and a few right
2) or you just can't know, but only hope that you're close to some truth

[avatar4321]

Or you could just go to the source, ask God and listen to His answer. Worked for me.

[darin]

From my experience, those who argue against faith by "How do you KNOW you are right?" are simply too afraid to make a decision.

[glockmail]

I know that I'm right becasue I've weighed all the scientific evidence and came up with the only logical conclusion: God created the universe and Jesus is God.

[shattered]

I don't know that I'm right in anything.. but I feel secure in the knowledge that I make the right choices for me, and if one of them happens to be wrong, I'm willing to accept whatever the consequences are, should there be any.

[Doniston]

Or you could just go to the source, ask God and listen to His answer. Worked for me.

Immagination.--- You ask an imaginary figure a figurative question, and you imagine an answer, and of course it is the answer you were hoping for.

[shattered]

Immagination.--- You ask an imaginary figure a figurative question, and you imagine an answer, and of course it is the answer you were hoping for.

Who are you to decide what is imaginary and what is not to anyone other than yourself?

[GW in Ohio]

I know that I'm right becasue I've weighed all the scientific evidence and came up with the only logical conclusion: God created the universe and Jesus is God.

It's hardly logical to say, "Jesus is God."

You can say that you believe it, but you're not gonna get there through logical reasoning.

[Pale Rider]

From my experience, those who argue against faith by "How do you KNOW you are right?" are simply too afraid to make a decision.

Or simply have no faith.

[Pale Rider]

It's hardly logical to say, "Jesus is God."

You can say that you believe it, but you're not gonna get there through logical reasoning.

Jesus is the "son" of God. You have to have "faith" that that is true. Most religons of the world require some leap of faith. Logic has nothing to do with it.

[gabosaurus]

Jesus is the "son" of God. You have to have "faith" that that is true. Most religons of the world require some leap of faith. Logic has nothing to do with it.

I totally agree with Pale on this. All religions are faith based. You have to believe in the word of God. Religion is a belief. God approves of different religious faiths, just as he approves of different languages and different cultures. Religious, cultural and ethnic struggles go back to the dawn of man. They are portrayed in the Bible.
God speaks to believers. Those who do not believe are not required to listen.

[typomaniac]

I totally agree with Pale on this. All religions are faith based. You have to believe in the word of God. Religion is a belief. God approves of different religious faiths, just as he approves of different languages and different cultures. Religious, cultural and ethnic struggles go back to the dawn of man. They are portrayed in the Bible.
God speaks to believers. Those who do not believe are not required to listen.

You and Pale agreeing has got to be one of the signs of the apocalypse. :eek:

[Doniston]

Who are you to decide what is imaginary and what is not to anyone other than yourself? it is my opinion. and I stick with it. your's is likely to be different, Dos is der vaight der ball vippen.

[Doniston]

I totally agree with Pale on this. All religions are faith based. You have to believe in the word of God. Religion is a belief. God approves of different religious faiths, just as he approves of different languages and different cultures. Religious, cultural and ethnic struggles go back to the dawn of man. They are portrayed in the Bible.
God speaks to believers. Those who do not believe are not required to listen. and we don't. instead, we laugh a lot.

[darin]

Having Faith, however, in Christ IS Logical. ;)

[shattered]

Having Faith, however, in Christ IS Logical. ;)

Well, I suppose so, if that's what your belief revolves around. ;)

[darin]

Well, I suppose so, if that's what your belief revolves around. ;)


For me, it's very easy to see the FACTS around Christ and his claims, and buy it. :)

[glockmail]

It's hardly logical to say, "Jesus is God."

You can say that you believe it, but you're not gonna get there through logical reasoning. Bull. I read the testimony of the Gospels. I read what happened to Paul. I read aguments for and against. Then I reached a logical conclusion.

[avatar4321]

Immagination.--- You ask an imaginary figure a figurative question, and you imagine an answer, and of course it is the answer you were hoping for.

Amazing that you mock God like that and you are surprised that He doesnt answer you...

From my experience God tends to give us what we want even if other things would be better for us. Because He respects our agency.

[manu1959]

Immagination.--- You ask an imaginary figure a figurative question, and you imagine an answer, and of course it is the answer you were hoping for.

you mean like the little voices in your head?

[Doniston]

Amazing that you mock God like that and you are surprised that He doesnt answer you...

From my experience God tends to give us what we want even if other things would be better for us. Because He respects our agency. I never mock imaginary beings, and I beleive mich more strongly in the "IDEA" of Santa Claus than in your form of God.

[Doniston]

you mean like the little voices in your head? Like the little voices most everyone has in their head.

[shattered]

I never mock imaginary beings, and I beleive mich more strongly in the "IDEA" of Santa Claus than in your form of God.

What the hell do you call that post, if not a complete mockery of someone elses belief?

Hypocrite.

[Doniston]

What the hell do you call that post, if not a complete mockery of someone elses belief?

Hypocrite. You may beleive whatever you want. I don't have to, and don't. and it isn't a bit hypocritical, even if it isn't what you want to hear.

[shattered]

You may beleive whatever you want. I don't have to, and don't. and it isn't a bit hypocritical, even if it isn't what you want to hear.

It is the prime example of hypocritical. Rather than just stating "You're entitled to your belief; I'm entitled to mine", you refer to their belief as "fictional", "imaginary", and barely as believable to Santa Claus.

Hypocritical.
Asinine.
Judgemental.

[gabosaurus]

You are always right when no one is allowed to tell you that you are wrong.

[manu1959]

Like the little voices most everyone has in their head.

redrum.............tony

[avatar4321]

You are always right when no one is allowed to tell you that you are wrong.

People can tell you you are wrong all the time. That doesnt make it so. Being right has nothing to do with what I say or what you say. It's about what God says. God teaches men truth. Why should we lie about that just because others dont want to hear it?

[GW in Ohio]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW in Ohio
It's hardly logical to say, "Jesus is God."

You can say that you believe it, but you're not gonna get there through logical reasoning.


Bull. I read the testimony of the Gospels. I read what happened to Paul. I read aguments for and against. Then I reached a logical conclusion.

No, you didn't reach a logical conclusion. You made a leap of faith. There's nothing "logical" about an obscure carpenter who believed he was God 2,000 years ago and said he was gonna die for your sins.

You can believe whatever you want, but don't try to pass your belief off as "logical." There's nothing logical about Christianity.

There's nothing logical about any other religion either, for that matter.

[gabosaurus]

People can tell you you are wrong all the time. That doesnt make it so. Being right has nothing to do with what I say or what you say. It's about what God says. God teaches men truth. Why should we lie about that just because others dont want to hear it?

You miss the point. My statement was a fundamental belief in all non-democratic entities. That is why some countries have state-mandated religion. If there is no freedom of thought and expression, there is no dissent.
That is why freedom of speech and expression are important.

God only speaks to those who want to listen.

[Doniston]

It is the prime example of hypocritical. Rather than just stating "You're entitled to your belief; I'm entitled to mine", you refer to their belief as "fictional", "imaginary", and barely as believable to Santa Claus.

Hypocritical.
Asinine.
Judgemental.

Judgemental??? YEP, definitiely---we all judge --every day

But it appears you don't know the meaning of either Hipocritical, or asinine.

It is my honest opinion. if you don't like it, TOUGH

[LOki]

How do you know that what you believe is right?When my beliefs are confirmed and validated by objective evidence and valid logic.

[Hobbit]

I know I'm right the same way I know that releasing an object of greater density than the atmosphere will cause it to accelerate towards the Earth. It's always happened before, and I see no reason that that will change anytime soon.

:D

[chum43]

I personally believe that it is impossible to know for sure... but unlike a lot of people that doesn't mean it invalidates people's beliefs, on the contrary, to me it means nobody needs any special justification to believe in whatever the hell they want. Anything can be good or bad, you just hope that your beliefs have a positive effect.

[glockmail]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW in Ohio
It's hardly logical to say, "Jesus is God."

You can say that you believe it, but you're not gonna get there through logical reasoning.



No, you didn't reach a logical conclusion. You made a leap of faith. There's nothing "logical" about an obscure carpenter who believed he was God 2,000 years ago and said he was gonna die for your sins.

You can believe whatever you want, but don't try to pass your belief off as "logical." There's nothing logical about Christianity.

There's nothing logical about any other religion either, for that matter.

Fuck you, man. I read the damn testimony of four individuals who had nothing to gain and everything to lose. In fact one was CRUCIFIED UPSIDE DOWN because of his testimony. None of the others fared well in life. They are very credible witnesses.

I've also read about the historical and geologic record that jives with what these guys wrote- furthering their credibility.

The fact that they wrote this stuff 2000 years ago doesn't make it an less significant.

I've also read stuff from shit fer brains like you telling me these guys were liars, and their stories are illogical.

SO DON'T TELL ME I'M NOT BEING LOGICAL, ASSHOLE.

[typomaniac]

Fuck you, man. I read the damn testimony of four individuals who had nothing to gain and everything to lose. In fact one was CRUCIFIED UPSIDE DOWN because of his testimony. None of the others fared well in life. They are very credible witnesses.

I've also read about the historical and geologic record that jives with what these guys wrote- furthering their credibility.

The fact that they wrote this stuff 2000 years ago doesn't make it an less significant.

I've also read stuff from shit fer brains like you telling me these guys were liars, and their stories are illogical.

SO DON'T TELL ME I'M NOT BEING LOGICAL, ASSHOLE.
How very fucking Christian of you. :pee:

[glockmail]

How very fucking Christian of you. :pee: Thanks, goatee.

:laugh2:

[Lightning Waltz]

Who are you to decide what is imaginary and what is not to anyone other than yourself?

You may not be able to decide for someone else what is imaginary or not...but you can decide for yourself. Someone else claiming to speak to "God", Allah, Odin, Ra, etc....would be under the classification of imaginary unless they were able to give good reason to believe it... But they may believe in their imaginary friend all they want.

[Lightning Waltz]

Fuck you, man. I read the damn testimony of four individuals who had nothing to gain and everything to lose. In fact one was CRUCIFIED UPSIDE DOWN because of his testimony. None of the others fared well in life. They are very credible witnesses.

I've also read about the historical and geologic record that jives with what these guys wrote- furthering their credibility.

The fact that they wrote this stuff 2000 years ago doesn't make it an less significant.

I've also read stuff from shit fer brains like you telling me these guys were liars, and their stories are illogical.

SO DON'T TELL ME I'M NOT BEING LOGICAL, ASSHOLE.

Er...just because someone dies believing in something, doesn't make what they died believing in, true.

This goes for suicide bombers, Joseph Smith, all those poor fools at the Jamestown Massacre...and yes, your "Jesus" as well.

As for the "historical and geologic record"...you do realize that a book doesn't have to be completely true or completely false, right? Is Gone With The Wind true because it contains an accurate "historical and geologic record"?

The fact that they wrote it 2,000 years ago, is significant in that we don't have any means of verifying what was claimed...or even that the claims that we have today, were true to their original claims...

It is MUCH more likely that the writers of the Bible were liars than that their story is actually true. Unless, of course, you can show me reason to believe that things beyond the laws of physics, as we understand them, actually happened....

[Lightning Waltz]

It is the prime example of hypocritical. Rather than just stating "You're entitled to your belief; I'm entitled to mine", you refer to their belief as "fictional", "imaginary", and barely as believable to Santa Claus.

Hypocritical.
Asinine.
Judgemental.

What do you refer to the beliefs of Muslims?

[glockmail]

Er...just because someone dies believing in something, doesn't make what they died believing in, true.

This goes for suicide bombers, Joseph Smith, all those poor fools at the Jamestown Massacre...and yes, your "Jesus" as well.

As for the "historical and geologic record"...you do realize that a book doesn't have to be completely true or completely false, right? Is Gone With The Wind true because it contains an accurate "historical and geologic record"?

The fact that they wrote it 2,000 years ago, is significant in that we don't have any means of verifying what was claimed...or even that the claims that we have today, were true to their original claims...

It is MUCH more likely that the writers of the Bible were liars than that their story is actually true. Unless, of course, you can show me reason to believe that things beyond the laws of physics, as we understand them, actually happened....

Err...

Look, Mr. Born Again Atheist. Nothing that I say could change your mind. I ain't going to wast my time. You'll just have to learn the hard way. :pee:

[GW in Ohio]

Fuck you, man. I read the damn testimony of four individuals who had nothing to gain and everything to lose. In fact one was CRUCIFIED UPSIDE DOWN because of his testimony. None of the others fared well in life. They are very credible witnesses.

I've also read about the historical and geologic record that jives with what these guys wrote- furthering their credibility.

The fact that they wrote this stuff 2000 years ago doesn't make it an less significant.

I've also read stuff from shit fer brains like you telling me these guys were liars, and their stories are illogical.

SO DON'T TELL ME I'M NOT BEING LOGICAL, ASSHOLE.

Glockie: You're an exemplary Christian. You exemplify everything Christianity represents.

Jesus would be so proud.......

[glockmail]

Glockie: You're an exemplary Christian. You exemplify everything Christianity represents.

Jesus would be so proud....... Eat shit.

[Doniston]

Err...

Look, Mr. Born Again Atheist. Nothing that I say could change your mind. I ain't going to wast my time. You'll just have to learn the hard way. :pee:

or----um---- perhaps yourself. and BTW calling someone names, it not exactly the trademark of a Christian.

[glockmail]

or----um---- perhaps yourself. and BTW calling someone names, it not exactly the trademark of a Christian. I've done my Christian duty by turning my cheek, only to get slapped in the other. God only gave me two cheeks; now it's pay back time. Being a Christain does not require me to bend over and take it up the ass.

[typomaniac]

I've done my Christian duty by turning my cheek, only to get slapped in the other. God only gave me two cheeks; now it's pay back time. Being a Christain does not require me to bend over and take it up the ass.

I wonder if DMP and Nienna are as "proud" of your rhetoric as I am?

[glockmail]

I wonder if DMP and Nienna are as "proud" of your rhetoric as I am? Gee I didn't know I was supposed to check in with them.

[Lightning Waltz]

Err...

Look, Mr. Born Again Atheist. Nothing that I say could change your mind. I ain't going to wast my time. You'll just have to learn the hard way. :pee:

Assuming there is anything that you claim is true to "learn", of course.

[Lightning Waltz]

I've done my Christian duty by turning my cheek, only to get slapped in the other. God only gave me two cheeks; now it's pay back time. Being a Christain does not require me to bend over and take it up the ass.

This is a funny interpretation of what "Jesus" supposedly said. Two "chances" and after that, it's "pay back time"....

[glockmail]

Assuming there is anything that you claim is true to "learn", of course.
You can assume anything you want, dear. Say "hey" to Lucifer for me. Don't say I didn't warn you though.

[Doniston]

I've done my Christian duty by turning my cheek, only to get slapped in the other. God only gave me two cheeks; now it's pay back time. Being a Christain does not require me to bend over and take it up the ass.

Tell me. Is that the "other Cheek" you DIDN'T turn?

(I have four, and I'm not even two-faced)

And verbally "Taking it" certainly is less demanding that physically. and I don't really think you can be part Christian.

Glockmail,--- "YOU" I like, but not your insults -even if they weren't directed at me.

[Lightning Waltz]

You can assume anything you want, dear. Say "hey" to Lucifer for me. Don't say I didn't warn you though.

No, no, no...you didn't understand. I'm not accepting YOUR assumptions.

As for "Lucifer", I don't believe that fairy tale, either. :)

[typomaniac]

No, no, no...you didn't understand. I'm not accepting YOUR assumptions.

As for "Lucifer", I don't believe that fairy tale, either. :)

He must be talking about that fat, nasty cat from Cinderella. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Tell me. Is that the "other Cheek" you DIDN'T turn?

And verbally "Taking it" certainly is less demanding that physically. and I don't really think you can be part Christian.

Glockmail,--- "YOU" I like, but not your insults -even if they weren't directed at me.

1. Funny- but no.
2. Its called eye for an eye. Insult for insult.
3. You don't have to read them, old friend.

[glockmail]

No, no, no...you didn't understand. I'm not accepting YOUR assumptions.

As for "Lucifer", I don't believe that fairy tale, either. :)

I'm not making any assumptions.

[Lightning Waltz]

I'm not making any assumptions.

Sure you are.

[Doniston]

1. Funny- but no.
2. Its called eye for an eye. Insult for insult.
3. You don't have to read them, old friend.

1. I have four, and I'm not even two-faced.

2. It can't be eye of eye when you START them.

3. But they sholdn't be posted at all.

[glockmail]

Sure you are. Prove it.

[glockmail]

1. I have four, and I'm not even two-faced.

2. It can't be eye of eye when you START them.

3. But they sholdn't be posted at all.

1. With bi-focs I'm a six. :cheers2:

2. If you check the record you will see that I was insulted at least twice before I responded in kind. And no, I'm not going to provide you links. You can do that as easily as I.

3. Agreed. But I don't ignore shit that keeps repeating. Not in my nature, as my Irish is tempered by my German.

[Lightning Waltz]

Prove it.

You're assuming that there is supposedly something to "learn" (about "God").

Do you want me to quote you?

I don't think you KNOW anything. You just have blind faith. And you certainly have given me no reason to believe that you know anything...

[glockmail]

.....

I don't think you KNOW anything. You just have blind faith. And you certainly have given me no reason to believe that you know anything...

:fu:

friggin atheist.

Eat shit.

[Missileman]

I know for a fact that I'm right if my argument is the opposite of our resident cupcake. :lmao:

[Lightning Waltz]

:fu:

friggin atheist.

Eat shit.

I bow to your obviously superior logic and morality....

[5stringJeff]

Glockmail has been given a 24 hour ban. Please clean up the comments in this thread and discuss the topic at hand.

[loosecannon]

No, no, no...you didn't understand. I'm not accepting YOUR assumptions.

As for "Lucifer", I don't believe that fairy tale, either. :)

Amazing. I wonder how frequently those who believe in a Lucifer also believe in islamofascist threats.

[manu1959]

Amazing. I wonder how frequently those who believe in a Lucifer also believe in islamofascist threats.

lucifer is evil...and there is an isalmofascist threat...

[avatar4321]

Amazing. I wonder how frequently those who believe in a Lucifer also believe in islamofascist threats.

Educated people would, because both exist.

[nevadamedic]

I don't know that I'm right in anything.. but I feel secure in the knowledge that I make the right choices for me, and if one of them happens to be wrong, I'm willing to accept whatever the consequences are, should there be any.

I just figured since your a female, your alway's right, atleast that's what I was taught. ;)

[Sitarro]

redrum.............tony

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :clap: :clap:

[Lightning Waltz]

Educated people would, because both exist.

I see absolutely no reason to believe that a "Lucifer" extis.

[LOki]

I see absolutely no reason to believe that a "Lucifer" extis.
Oh, there are boatloads of reasons to believe Lucifer exists--just ask the people who believe in Him. There are just none validated by evidence.

[shattered]

I just figured since your a female, your alway's right, atleast that's what I was taught. ;)

Well...once in awhile, we're always right. About everything. :cool:

[loosecannon]

lucifer is evil...and there is an isalmofascist threat...

thanks for confirming my hunch

[Doniston]

I see absolutely no reason to believe that a "Lucifer" extis. To me, the only Lucifer is the one in our own heads.

[glockmail]

I bow to your obviously superior logic and morality....
Good idea.

[glockmail]

Glockmail has been given a 24 hour ban. Please clean up the comments in this thread and discuss the topic at hand. :laugh2:

[Doniston]

Educated people would, because both exist. They may be educated, but the only thing relevant is that they believe in Satan. That if definitely not my belief.

[Lightning Waltz]

Good idea.

I was, of course, being sarcastic. You have neither.

[Lightning Waltz]

:laugh2:

I find it funny that he would expect you to actually discuss the issue at hand, too.

[Lightning Waltz]

They may be educated, but the only thing relevant is that they believe in Satan. That if definitely not my belief.

Not only that, but there is nothing to be "educated" about to believe in "Satan". There is no good reason to believe it to be "educated" on...

[Doniston]

Not only that, but there is nothing to be "educated" about to believe in "Satan". There is no good reason to believe it to be "educated" on... Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.

[Lightning Waltz]

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.

Can you be "educated" on the existance of dragons?

[glockmail]

I was, of course, being sarcastic. You have neither. As you have repeatedly insulted the intelligence of my argument you don't desrve anthing other than :pee:

[Lightning Waltz]

As you have repeatedly insulted the intelligence of my argument you don't desrve anthing other than :pee:

No, I insulted your non-argument. I haven't seen you put forth an argument... The fact that you brought insults to the table is what prompted me to make my initial sarcastic reply...

[glockmail]

No, I insulted your non-argument. I haven't seen you put forth an argument... The fact that you brought insults to the table is what prompted me to make my initial sarcastic reply...Again you are pitifully wrong. read posts 4, 18 and 35. I patiently wait for your apology or excuses.

[Lightning Waltz]

Again you are pitifully wrong. read posts 4, 18 and 35. I patiently wait for your apology or excuses.

You can wait longer. Those weren't arguments. They were merely statements of your belief. You gave absolutely no reason to credit what you say, other than that you claim to be convinced.

[glockmail]

You can wait longer. Those weren't arguments. They were merely statements of your belief. You gave absolutely no reason to credit what you say, other than that you claim to be convinced.


#4:
I've weighed all the scientific evidence and came up with the only logical conclusion
#18:
I read the testimony of the Gospels. I read what happened to Paul. I read aguments for and against. Then I reached a logical conclusion.

#35:
I read the damn testimony of four individuals who had nothing to gain and everything to lose. In fact one was CRUCIFIED UPSIDE DOWN because of his testimony. None of the others fared well in life. They are very credible witnesses.

I've also read about the historical and geologic record that jives with what these guys wrote- furthering their credibility.

The fact that they wrote this stuff 2000 years ago doesn't make it an less significant.

I've also read stuff from shit fer brains like you telling me these guys were liars, and their stories are illogical.


:pee:

[Lightning Waltz]

#4:
#18:
#35:

:pee:

And as I said...

[Doniston]

Can you be "educated" on the existance of dragons? the word would be "Informed" and yes, IMHO,that would be a form of education.

[Doniston]

#4:
#18:
#35:

:pee: those ar simply statements of WHAT you beleive, and where you got it. You have not debated or discussed the reasons you think you are right.

[gabosaurus]

Can we get back on topic, please?

In a democracy, being right is often open to debate.
In a dictatorship, there is only one side. Which is always right, by law.

I find it absurd that there are those who profess to love democracy, but feel they always have to be right, by decree.

[glockmail]

And as I said...


those ar simply statements of WHAT you beleive, and where you got it. You have not debated or discussed the reasons you think you are right.

Bullshit.

Leave it to libs to argue that an argument is not an argument. It appears that they are afraid of the agument. :pee:

[Lightning Waltz]

Bullshit.

Leave it to libs to argue that an argument is not an argument. It appears that they are afraid of the agument. :pee:

Leave it to you to declare a statement of belief as being an argument...

[glockmail]

Leave it to you to declare a statement of belief as being an argument...

So tell us mister logic- what do you owe your faith in nothing?

[Lightning Waltz]

So tell us mister logic- what do you owe your faith in nothing?

First, I try not to use faith. It's not logical.
Second, I don't believe in nothing. Well, nothing may exist (that isn't to say that there isn't anything that exists, but that there is something, which is nothing, which exists...)

But, what I think you're actually trying to ask is this: "What do you owe your absense of belief in any 'God' or set of gods?"

That's an easy question to answer...

The default is to not believe in something rather than to believe in it. There are an infinite possible number of things that are actually true. But, for each thing that is actually true, there are an infinite possible number of things that could be true, but aren't. Therefore, there is a one to infinite relationship between what is true, to what isn't.

Given that, the only reasonable position to take is to not believing in something unless you have good reason TO believe in it.

Every argument that I have seen concerning the existance of a "God" or set of gods, has been found lacking.

Now you will claim that is a statement of belief rather than an argument. Very good. You may catch on, yet.

So, let's go over any argument that you choose...

Creationism arguments, arguments from morality, Pascal's Wager, Onthological argument, arguments about Biblical phrophecy, etc... (I'm obviously not going to write out everything in this post, but if there is something you want to talk about, shoot)

[glockmail]

....

Now you will claim that is a statement of belief rather than an argument. ..... Based on your definition, yes. Nice cop out. :pee:

[LOki]

So tell us mister logic- what do you owe your faith in nothing?Setting aside the abstract notion of "nothing," there is no need to have faith in "nothing," because "nothing" is irrellevent--there's ALWAYS "something." :D

Perhaps the better phrasing of the question is:<blockquote>"To what do you owe having no faith?"</blockquote>For me, it would be that verifiable evidence is more compelling to me than imagination and/or superstitions.

[glockmail]

Setting aside the abstract notion of "nothing," there is no need to have faith in "nothing," because "nothing" is irrellevent--there's ALWAYS "something." :D

Perhaps the better phrasing of the question is:<blockquote>"To what do you owe having no faith?"</blockquote>For me, it would be that verifiable evidence is more compelling to me than imagination and/or superstitions.

Based on our new standard, that is just merely a statement of belief. :D

[LOki]

Based on our new standard, that is just merely a statement of belief. :DI'm sorry, I missed the new standard; what is it?

[Lightning Waltz]

Based on your definition, yes. Nice cop out. :pee:

Too bad you didn't realize that I dealt with that objection in my post.

Nice selective quoting, though. I'll give you props for that.

[glockmail]

I'm sorry, I missed the new standard; what is it?
Ask the author: lightning waltz.

[glockmail]

Too bad you didn't realize that I dealt with that objection in my post.

Nice selective quoting, though. I'll give you props for that. Touche. :laugh2:

[LOki]

Ask the author: lightning waltz.Fine then; asking now. :wtf:

[Lightning Waltz]

I'm sorry, I missed the new standard; what is it?

Glockmail suggests that any stated belief is an "argument".

Examples: "I've weighed all the scientific evidence and came up with the only logical conclusion"

"I've researched all of the presidents and found Bush to be the worst"

"I've researched all of the posters and found Glockmail to be the most illogical"

I've pointed out a statement of belief, without actually backing up your statement of belief, is not, in fact, an argument.

[glockmail]

....

"I've researched all of the posters and found Glockmail to be the most illogical"

.....

I've read several of your posts and determined that you have shit for brains.

[LOki]

Glockmail suggests that any stated belief is an "argument".

Examples: "I've weighed all the scientific evidence and came up with the only logical conclusion"

"I've researched all of the presidents and found Bush to be the worst"

"I've researched all of the posters and found Glockmail to be the most illogical"

I've pointed out a statement of belief, without actually backing up your statement of belief, is not, in fact, an argument.Holy shit. I think you're wrong and glockmail is right. :eek:

A statement of belief at least contains an argument. That argument may be supported or unsupported, but it's still an argument. Unless you are getting all formal about it, in which case I'd challenge you to show us a statement of belief that cannot be validly expressed as a formal argument.

[Lightning Waltz]

Holy shit. I think you're wrong and glockmail is right. :eek:

A statement of belief at least contains an argument. That argument may be supported or unsupported, but it's still an argument. Unless you are getting all formal about it, in which case I'd challenge you to show us a statement of belief that cannot be validly expressed as a formal argument.

A statement of belief would be a premise. It takes more than a premise to make an argument.

An argument would have to have the premise, and supporting statements to back up that premise to reach a conclusion...otherwise, it ain't no argument.

[glockmail]

Holy shit. I think you're wrong and glockmail is right. :eek:

.... .

Pigs are now flying.

[glockmail]

A statement of belief would be a premise. It takes more than a premise to make an argument.

An argument would have to have the premise, and supporting statements to back up that premise to reach a conclusion...otherwise, it ain't no argument.
Main Entry: ar·gu·ment
Pronunciation: 'är-gy&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the poem>
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar

[LOki]

A statement of belief would be a premise. It takes more than a premise to make an argument.

An argument would have to have the premise, and supporting statements to back up that premise to reach a conclusion...otherwise, it ain't no argument.<blockquote>"I believe God created the world because the Bible says so."</blockquote>Statement of belief?
Argument?
Both?

[Lightning Waltz]

Main Entry: ar·gu·ment
Pronunciation: 'är-gy&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the poem>
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar

Tell me how saying, "I've weighed all the scientific evidence and came up with the only logical conclusion", is "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion"...

[glockmail]

Tell me how saying, "I've weighed all the scientific evidence and came up with the only logical conclusion", is "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion"...

I prefer to watch you drown in your own swill of denial.

[Lightning Waltz]

<blockquote>"I believe God created the world because the Bible says so."</blockquote>Statement of belief?
Argument?
Both?

Statement of belief. There is no connection between, "the Bible says so" and reason to believe in a "God". That states why YOU believe (again, statement of belief), but it is not an argument for why others should.

[Lightning Waltz]

I prefer to watch you drown in your own swill of denial.

In other words, you can't.

[5stringJeff]

<blockquote>"I believe God created the world because the Bible says so."</blockquote>Statement of belief?
Argument?
Both?

Argument. It would be fully laid out as such:

P1 (assumed): The Bible is correct in those things it speaks about.
P2: The Bible says that God created the world.

C: God created the world.

[Pale Rider]

it is my opinion. and I stick with it. your's is likely to be different, Dos is der vaight der ball vippen.

Writting comments on the board in anything other than english is forbidden.

[Lightning Waltz]

Argument. It would be fully laid out as such:

P1 (assumed): The Bible is correct in those things it speaks about.
P2: The Bible says that God created the world.

C: God created the world.

THAT would be an argument.

EDIT: Note, you can't assume P1 because that isn't the only possible assumption...
How about P1 -- God wrote the bible and God was there to create it OR because Billy-Jack told me that the Bible was true OR because the Bible has been proven by external evidence to be historically accurate, etc, etc, etc.

[5stringJeff]

THAT would be an argument.

It is the argument. Christians take premise 1 for granted, so it's never stated. Essentially, you are arguing about an assumed premise, which leads to the confusion.

[LOki]

Statement of belief. There is no connection between, "the Bible says so" and reason to believe in a "God". That states why YOU believe (again, statement of belief), but it is not an argument for why others should.So the issue for you <b>is</b> the formality business. And you either refuse, or can't validly turn that statement into a formal argument, and then assert that no-one can, thus you assert it can't be an argument.

Excuse me for being a little harsh here; this reeks of intellectual cowardice. I'd ask you to man-up a little.

[Lightning Waltz]

As you have repeatedly insulted the intelligence of my argument you don't desrve anthing other than :pee:

When someone like Glockmail has made the statements of belief that he has, people rightfully haven't accepted them (because there is no reason that they should), and he gets upset that "people insult the intelligence of his arguments"...yes, I'm going to be looking for a formal argument rather than a completely unfounded statement of belief.

That's the way it goes.

[Lightning Waltz]

It is the argument. Christians take premise 1 for granted, so it's never stated. Essentially, you are arguing about an assumed premise, which leads to the confusion.

Again, wrong. That isn't the only possible assumption that could be made for P1.

[gabosaurus]

I've read several of your posts and determined that you have shit for brains.

You could say the same thing for a lot of different posters. Mostly the ones who are arguing over nothing.

[nevadamedic]

How do you know that what you believe is right? Can you? Is it possible to know? To answer 'you can't know' seems to be threatening to many, even to myself, and especially to those who say, "you don't need to know, that's why its called faith" (who are ironically the same people who define faith as being sure of things hoped for. Being sure.... is that not knowing?).

Why is it so hard to say for us to say 'you can't know'? Maybe because our entire well-being is totally contingent upon our belief structure. It has been said, "Theology is the discipline that orders life."

However, most people don't answer 'you can't know' because they believe that you can. Most people believe they know truth because they learned it, reasoned it, felt it, or read some set of Holy Scriptures. The funny things is: it's the same story across the board. The Americanized Christian has the same argument as the Shaolin priest in Japan. Everybody thinks they're right. I guess it would be pretty scary if they didn't know the truth.

So here are the options:
1) knowledge of the truth is possible, which makes a lot of people wrong and a few right
2) or you just can't know, but only hope that you're close to some truth

Im always right :)

[glockmail]

In other words, you can't. Try writing a sentence.

[Lightning Waltz]

Try writing a sentence.

Try answering the question.

[glockmail]

When someone like Glockmail has made the statements of belief that he has, people rightfully haven't accepted them (because there is no reason that they should), and he gets upset that "people insult the intelligence of his arguments"...yes, I'm going to be looking for a formal argument rather than a completely unfounded statement of belief.

That's the way it goes.
Then I too will ask you to man up. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Try answering the question.
You didn't ask one. :poke:

[Lightning Waltz]

Then I too will ask you to man up. :laugh2:

Yeah, maybe I should. I tend to argue down to the person I'm talking to.

[Lightning Waltz]

You didn't ask one. :poke:

Yes, I did.

I'll repeat it for you:

Tell me how saying, "I've weighed all the scientific evidence and came up with the only logical conclusion", is "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion"...

[glockmail]

Yeah, maybe I should. I tend to argue down to the person I'm talking to. Then why do I need a telescope to see the top of your head?

[glockmail]

Yes, I did.

I'll repeat it for you:

Tell me how saying, "I've weighed all the scientific evidence and came up with the only logical conclusion", is "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion"...


Again, no question.

You were the one who insisted on exactness here. Now you will have to live with it.:laugh2:

[Doniston]

A statement of belief would be a premise. It takes more than a premise to make an argument.

An argument would have to have the premise, and supporting statements to back up that premise to reach a conclusion...otherwise, it ain't no argument. Agreed.

[Doniston]

Main Entry: ar·gu·ment
Pronunciation: 'är-gy&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT
4 : an abstract or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the poem>
5 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
6 a : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends b : a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar the only one that even comes close is #4, and that is very dubious.

[Doniston]

<blockquote>"I believe God created the world because the Bible says so."</blockquote>Statement of belief?
Argument?
Both? Statement of belief--- no argument at all

[Doniston]

Writting comments on the board in anything other than english is forbidden. Yet it happens all the time. You are really grasping at straws, HUH??

It means "That is the way the ball bounces"

[Doniston]

Try writing a sentence. he did, and it was a proper sentence.

[Doniston]

Then why do I need a telescope to see the top of your head? now that's funny, and I am positive that is not what you wanted to convey. HEH HEH

[LOki]

Statement of belief--- no argument at all5stringJeff has already demonstrated that the statement presented is, in fact, an argument. As it turns out, you're wrong (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64593&postcount=115). Again.

The argument is certainly faulty as explained by Lightning Waltz (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64600&postcount=117), but it is an argument regardless.

The preamble of the statement is "I believe...", making the argument presented a statement of belief, and thus, in the real world, Doniston, where real things happen, the statement is BOTH argument and statement of belief.

[glockmail]

Agreed.


the only one that even comes close is #4, and that is very dubious.

Reality sucks for you?

[glockmail]

he did, and it was a proper sentence.

The real issue here is that Lightning Waltz has spent several days on tangents in an effort not to have to deal with the logic of my argument. That is very telling.

:laugh2:

[5stringJeff]

Again, wrong. That isn't the only possible assumption that could be made for P1.

It's not the only possible assumption. However, the vast majority of Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, and therefore authoritative in all that it says. So, if a Christian presents the argument I outlined, P1 is almost always the unspoken premise.

[Doniston]

5stringJeff has already demonstrated that the statement presented is, in fact, an argument. As it turns out, you're wrong (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64593&postcount=115). Again.

The argument is certainly faulty as explained by Lightning Waltz (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64600&postcount=117), but it is an argument regardless.

The preamble of the statement is "I believe...", making the argument presented a statement of belief, and thus, in the real world, Doniston, where real things happen, the statement is BOTH argument and statement of belief.

Op-vs-OP Are you suggesting that someone who disgagrees with you is NOT in the real world? My, My, MY.

[LOki]

Op-vs-OP Are you suggesting that someone who disgagrees with you is NOT in the real world? My, My, MY.No. You're a person who exists in the real world. Yet since you've clearly demonstrated, on more than one occaision, that you just fabricate accusations from nothing in the real world, make up your own meanings for terms used regardless of their contex in the real world, and deny the reality of your own actions in the real world, I'm suggesting that your opinions are not relevent to the real world, and have no relevence to the facts of matters.

Where your opinions disagree with reality, Donistion, is where you are wrong. As it happens, your opinion of the issue at hand is just another one of those circumstances. It really has nothing to do with me or my opinion.

Believe me Doniston, my opinion that you're merely delusional is far more charitable to you, than the opinion you've earned; you should attempt to get good with that.

[glockmail]

.....

Believe me Doniston, my opinion that you're merely delusional is far more charitable to you, than the opinion you've earned; you should attempt to get good with that.

When we look up the word "asshole" in the dictionary, should we expect to see your picture?

[Doniston]

Believe me Doniston, my opinion that you're merely delusional is far more charitable to you, than the opinion you've earned; you should attempt to get good with that. Oh tell us sir Loki, what is the opinion I have earned, (not that your opinion is worth reading.)

Now if you would stay on topic instead of personalites, We might be able to have a reasonable conversation.

[LOki]

When we look up the word "asshole" in the dictionary, should we expect to see your picture?Never worry, glockmail, your claim to that place of recognition is safe; I could never supplant you.

[LOki]

Oh tell us sir Loki, what is the opinion I have earned, (not that your opinion is worth reading.)It seems my opinion is at least worth asking for (if not reading), and since (and only because) you asked, I will tell you: In my opinion, based on the the posting history I've shared with you, and validated by the clear evidence contained therein, you go beyond merely delusional to being dumb. And I don't mean dumb in the relieving manner where we wouldn't hear from you, but rather that usage that indicates stupidity. Your denials of reality are not just quirky, Doniston, they're systematic, pervasive, and persistent.

And, you're welcome.


Now if you would stay on topic instead of personalites, We might be able to have a reasonable conversation. For "we" to have a "reasonable" conversation, the "you" part of "we" has to let go of your delusions, be rational, and embrace intellectual integrity. As luck would have it for you, Doniston, hope springs eternal, so back to the topic:

Thus far, it appears that glockmail's assertion is correct as 5stringJeff has already demonstrated that the statement of belief presented is, in fact (rather than your unsupported opinion), an argument (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64593&postcount=115).

I am not arguing that the argument is not faulty. Its faults were explained by Lightning Waltz (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64600&postcount=117); but faulty as argument that such statements might be, they are arguments regardless.

[glockmail]

Never worry, glockmail, your claim to that place of recognition is safe; I could never supplant you.
True, and I could teach you many things about being an asshole. But your continued disrespect for others is boring.

[LOki]

True, and I could teach you many things about being an asshole.I'll keep that in mind when I aspire to mad-skillz.


But your continued disrespect for others is boring. Respect and disrespect are earned and reciprocated values, glockmail, and I am not nearly so stingy with my respect as I am with my disrespect. Many "others" enjoy my respect. You should be careful to not confuse my disrespect for an argument to be disrespect for the person presenting it. Yet even when someone has personally earned my disrespect, I am reluctant to give it out--unless it is demanded of me, as this particular case happens to be. I won't likely be sorry about it glockmail; but I am sorry, and apologize to you, that it wasn't more entertaining.

[Doniston]

It seems my opinion is at least worth asking for (if not reading), and since (and only because) you asked, I will tell you: In my opinion, based on the the posting history I've shared with you, and validated by the clear evidence contained therein, you go beyond merely delusional to being dumb. And I don't mean dumb in the relieving manner where we wouldn't hear from you, but rather that usage that indicates stupidity. Your denials of reality are not just quirky, Doniston, they're systematic, pervasive, and persistent.

And, you're welcome.

For "we" to have a "reasonable" conversation, the "you" part of "we" has to let go of your delusions, be rational, and embrace intellectual integrity. As luck would have it for you, Doniston, hope springs eternal, so back to the topic:

Thus far, it appears that glockmail's assertion is correct as 5stringJeff has already demonstrated that the statement of belief presented is, in fact (rather than your unsupported opinion), an argument (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64593&postcount=115).

I am not arguing that the argument is not faulty. Its faults were explained by Lightning Waltz (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64600&postcount=117); but faulty as argument that such statements might be, they are arguments regardless. Smply more rant, personal reteric (and I emphasize "Personal") and totally off topic flaming. To me your opinion has become nothingless. Talk about being Dumb.

[Doniston]

I'll keep that in mind when I aspire to mad-skillz.

Respect and disrespect are earned and reciprocated values, glockmail, and I am not nearly so stingy with my respect as I am with my disrespect. Many "others" enjoy my respect. You should be careful to not confuse my disrespect for an argument to be disrespect for the person presenting it. Yet even when someone has personally earned my disrespect, I am reluctant to give it out--unless it is demanded of me, as this particular case happens to be. I won't likely be sorry about it glockmail; but I am sorry, and apologize to you, that it wasn't more entertaining. But are you respected by any others??? I have seen no evidence of that on this Forum.

and I have a hunch that the only ones you "Respect are those who agree with you (or at least don't comfront you with your garbage)

However, since you refuse to get back on topic but continue your personal rants. I will say Adu---- again.

[glockmail]

I'll keep that in mind when I aspire to mad-skillz.

Respect and disrespect are earned and reciprocated values, glockmail, and I am not nearly so stingy with my respect as I am with my disrespect. Many "others" enjoy my respect. You should be careful to not confuse my disrespect for an argument to be disrespect for the person presenting it. Yet even when someone has personally earned my disrespect, I am reluctant to give it out--unless it is demanded of me, as this particular case happens to be. I won't likely be sorry about it glockmail; but I am sorry, and apologize to you, that it wasn't more entertaining.

You spend too much of my time with back handed insults. Be direct. Be a manly asshole.

[glockmail]

But are you respected by any others??? I have seen no evidence of that on this Forum...... True.

[LOki]

But are you respected by any others???Sure.


I have seen no evidence of that on this Forum.You'd have to be familiar with the reality of respect first.


and I have a hunch that the only ones you "Respect are those who agree with you (or at least don't comfront you with your garbage)Well that's complete nonsense.


However, since you refuse to get back on topic but continue your personal rants. I will say Adu---- again. Welcome to being wrong again (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=66091#post66091).
Thus far, it appears that glockmail's assertion is correct as 5stringJeff has already demonstrated that the statement of belief presented is, in fact (rather than your unsupported opinion), an argument (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64593&postcount=115).

I am not arguing that the argument is not faulty. Its faults were explained by Lightning Waltz (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=64600&postcount=117); but faulty as argument that such statements might be, they are arguments regardless.Not rant, not personal rhetoric (and I emphasize "Not Personal") and totally not off topic flaming. Doniston, your opinion (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=66196&postcount=150) is actually nothingness. Insisting it's otherwise would be dumb.

[Doniston]

Sure.

You'd have to be familiar with the reality of respect first.

Well that's complete nonsense.

Welcome to being wrong again (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=66091#post66091).Not rant, not personal rhetoric (and I emphasize "Not Personal") and totally not off topic flaming. Doniston, your opinion (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=66196&postcount=150) is actually nothingness. Insisting it's otherwise would be dumb. your parting Shit? (opps I'm sorry, parting Shot.)

[LOki]

your parting Shit? (opps I'm sorry, parting Shot.)This is your new strategy then? Wishful thinking? I hope that works out for you.

[LOki]

Ok then.

Since statements of belief are arguments. What kind of validation makes a statement of belief so meaningful that we would be justified in killing someone over it?

[Gunny]

But are you respected by any others??? I have seen no evidence of that on this Forum.

and I have a hunch that the only ones you "Respect are those who agree with you (or at least don't comfront you with your garbage)

However, since you refuse to get back on topic but continue your personal rants. I will say Adu---- again.

I have plenty of respect for Loki, and he is easily capable of dancing circles around you.

I'm even sure he can spell adieu.:laugh2:

[Gunny]

Ok then.

Since statements of belief are arguments. What kind of validation makes a statement of belief so meaningful that we would be justified in killing someone over it?

When the other person's statement of belief is a mortal threat to those who who believe as you, and that person's beliefs are not universally acceptable.

[Doniston]

I have plenty of respect for Loki, and he is easily capable of dancing circles around you.

I'm even sure he can spell adieu.:laugh2: according to PMs, and Rep messages, it is apparent that there are many wo disagree with you. and if you had bothered to noticed, I abbreviate a lot of words.(intentionally) Does that confuse you??? I spell though as tho, democratic as dem, etc.

[LOki]

When the other person's statement of belief is a mortal threat to those who who believe as you, and that person's beliefs are not universally acceptable.I see that self defense is justifable, but the point of the question I'm asking is meant to be pointed at initiating of the violence, rather than reacting to it.

So, that in mind: What kind of validation makes a statement of belief so meaningful that we would be justified in killing someone over it?

[Psychoblues]

You don't. It's a relative thing don't you know?

[Gunny]

according to PMs, and Rep messages, it is apparent that there are many wo disagree with you. and if you had bothered to noticed, I abbreviate a lot of words.(intentionally) Does that confuse you??? I spell though as tho, democratic as dem, etc.

Not even a good try. You're trying to say you abbreviated "adieu" with "adu?":laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

The fact that those who would agree with you disagree with me only makes me all the more sure of my statement.

[Gunny]

I see that self defense is justifable, but the point of the question I'm asking is meant to be pointed at initiating of the violence, rather than reacting to it.

So, that in mind: What kind of validation makes a statement of belief so meaningful that we would be justified in killing someone over it?

The simple, on-the-surface answer would be "none," because IMO, any circumstance that would justify initiating the violence would STILL amount to be proactive in defending against a perceived future threat.

All things being equal but different, with no threat posed by either side, then violence from one side against the other would not be justified.

[LOki]

The simple, on-the-surface answer would be "none," because IMO, any circumstance that would justify initiating the violence would STILL amount to be proactive in defending against a perceived future threat.Ok. I still see self defense as a valid argument for the excersise of violence, but what kind of validation makes believing this perception of future threat meaningful enough to initiate proactive violent action?

[Gunny]

Ok. I still see self defense as a valid argument for the excersise of violence, but what kind of validation makes believing this perception of future threat meaningful enough to initiate proactive violent action?

That of course would be subjective to what the person perceiving the threat considers "validation." If you are looking for an irrefutable, defining line in the sand, I don't think there is one without obvious, solid evidence that supports the perception, and the validation would be as varying and the perceptions.

For instance (and I am not trying to rehash the WMD argument -- only use it as an illustration) ... Saddam Hussein produced, possessed and used chemical weapons ... lumped into the catch-all "WMDs" by the media.

There are STILL unaccounted for chemical/bio weapons/compounds/percursors on record at the UN as being in his/Iraq's possession.

He led UN Weapons Inspectors around by the nose, allowing them to look only in certain places, kicked them out of the country at times, and generally giving all the appearances of attempting to hide something.

He continually made threats against the US and/or our allies.

On at least two separate occasions, he used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians.

On two separate occasions he initiated military hostilities against neighboring nations.

The perception, using nothing more than logical conclusion, is that he possessed and would use WMDs. A perception held by most intellgence agencies in the world, and most people -- barring the current revisionists who now swear they knew all along something apparently no one else did.

Evidence after the fact has not supported the perception. Either Saddam managed to hide his WMDs, or he disposed of them. Does the Monday morning quarterbacking in any way alter the perception held prior to those weapons not as of yet being found? IMO, no.

[Lightning Waltz]

There are STILL unaccounted for chemical/bio weapons/compounds/percursors on record at the UN as being in his/Iraq's possession.

I'm not sure how that would help you... Are you trying to show the effectiveness of the war?


He led UN Weapons Inspectors around by the nose, allowing them to look only in certain places, kicked them out of the country at times, and generally giving all the appearances of attempting to hide something.

You later talk about historical revisionism. Funny how you don't mention, here, that Bush kicked out the weapons inspectors who were on the ground, who stated they needed more time, but weren't finding a shred of evidence to suggest that the WMDs were there. A fact that was confirmed after the war....no WMDs.


He continually made threats against the US and/or our allies.

Not unique to Saddam, of course.


On at least two separate occasions, he used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians.

And the US didn't care / still supported Saddam and his war against the Soviet backed Iran...


On two separate occasions he initiated military hostilities against neighboring nations.

One was supported by the US, the other, was not. More selective indignation. More historical revisionism.

BTW, how many times has the US "initiated military hostilities against" other nations?


The perception, using nothing more than logical conclusion, is that he possessed and would use WMDs. A perception held by most intellgence agencies in the world, and most people -- barring the current revisionists who now swear they knew all along something apparently no one else did.

Again, your historical revisionism is in the way. You forget that the US claimed to know EXACTLY where the WMDs are, the whole yellow cake fiasco, other false claims with regards to Iraq (like a link to 9/11), etc.

The perception may have been that Iraq had some amount of WMDs (depends on how you define "WMD", btw. For something to be a real WMD, you must have a delievery system. With regards to the US, no...he didn't have any WMDs. He was no threat. He was contained. Could he still attack some folks local to his region? Yes.) but, the perception held by most intelligence agencies around the world is that he wasn't a threat significant enough to merit regime change.


Evidence after the fact has not supported the perception.

Evidence after the fact has supported the perception that he was no threat to the US then, and wouldn't be a threat to the US now, had he been continued to be contained.

[Gunny]

I'm not sure how that would help you... Are you trying to show the effectiveness of the war?



You later talk about historical revisionism. Funny how you don't mention, here, that Bush kicked out the weapons inspectors who were on the ground, who stated they needed more time, but weren't finding a shred of evidence to suggest that the WMDs were there. A fact that was confirmed after the war....no WMDs.



Not unique to Saddam, of course.



And the US didn't care / still supported Saddam and his war against the Soviet backed Iran...



One was supported by the US, the other, was not. More selective indignation. More historical revisionism.

BTW, how many times has the US "initiated military hostilities against" other nations?



Again, your historical revisionism is in the way. You forget that the US claimed to know EXACTLY where the WMDs are, the whole yellow cake fiasco, other false claims with regards to Iraq (like a link to 9/11), etc.

The perception may have been that Iraq had some amount of WMDs (depends on how you define "WMD", btw. For something to be a real WMD, you must have a delievery system. With regards to the US, no...he didn't have any WMDs. He was no threat. He was contained. Could he still attack some folks local to his region? Yes.) but, the perception held by most intelligence agencies around the world is that he wasn't a threat significant enough to merit regime change.



Evidence after the fact has supported the perception that he was no threat to the US then, and wouldn't be a threat to the US now, had he been continued to be contained.

There is no historical revisionism on my part. You however has introduced a bunch of irrelevant, after-the-fact trivialities that have NOTHING to do with the point of my statement.

Further, I will be more than delighted to spank you around on the topic if you are feeling all masochistic and chipper. Feel free to start ANOTHER THREAD addressing the specific topic instead of derailing the discussion in this one.

[Lightning Waltz]

There is no historical revisionism on my part. You however has introduced a bunch of irrelevant, after-the-fact trivialities that have NOTHING to do with the point of my statement.

Further, I will be more than delighted to spank you around on the topic if you are feeling all masochistic and chipper. Feel free to start ANOTHER THREAD addressing the specific topic instead of derailing the discussion in this one.

"after-the-fact"? :lol:

And you brought it up. I just responded.

[Gunny]

"after-the-fact"? :lol:

And you brought it up. I just responded.

So what part of THIS did you NOT get?


(and I am not trying to rehash the WMD argument -- only use it as an illustration)

You responded to an illustration, not the point. Good job. Put yourself in for a medal.

[glockmail]

So what part of THIS did you NOT get?



You responded to an illustration, not the point. Good job. Put yourself in for a medal.


Put himself up for at least two phoneys like Kerry did. :laugh2:

[Lightning Waltz]

You responded to an illustration, not the point. Good job. Put yourself in for a medal.

I just pointed out that your "illustration", was piss poor.

[Lightning Waltz]

Put himself up for at least two phoneys like Kerry did. :laugh2:

This is how republicans "support the troops".

BTW, how many medals did Bush get for desertion?

[Gunny]

I just pointed out that your "illustration", was piss poor.

It is a perfect illustration of the point I was making. Now if I was to try to illustrate my point using that pile of manure YOU posted, it would definitely be piss-poor.

You really should attempt at least to educated yourself on a topic prior to letting your mouth flat outrun your mind.

[Gunny]

This is how republicans "support the troops".


BTW, how many medals did Bush get for desertion?

:lame2:

[glockmail]

This is how republicans "support the troops".

BTW, how many medals did Bush get for desertion? Perhaps you could provide eveidence of said desertion.

Kerry, on tye other hand, deserted the Navy by getting at least two fake Purple Hearts, than once he had three filed to get out only 4 months into his 12 month service. Where are the records backing up thiose Purple Hearts? Why did his commanding officer not recomend him for these medals?

[LOki]

That of course would be subjective to what the person perceiving the threat considers "validation." If you are looking for an irrefutable, defining line in the sand, I don't think there is one without obvious, solid evidence that supports the perception, and the validation would be as varying and the perceptions.

For instance ... [EDIT: Because I think I get your point and I don't want to continue to distract those who don't] ...I think the point you're asserting, and I think I am ready to agree with, is that "evidence," objective and verifiable, would be the kind of validation required of a belief in order for that belief to be meaningful enough to kill someone over.

Despite the evidence in the example you presented being faulty**, it lends far greater meaning to the belief that a violent regime change in Iraq, was necessary for US security, than the superstitious beliefs (for example) some 20 guys had, that flying planes into buildings was necessary to please God.

It is not nearly enough to merely have conviction of right in one's beliefs to take the step over the line into killing people--it's "solid evidence," objective and verifiable evidence, that someone else's belief has lethal intent to one's self; that that makes one's belief meaningful enough to use deadly force in self defense.

Yes?

**BTW: The use of that particular example and you analysis was perfectly appropriate, as it illustrates that faulty evidence is still more validating of beliefs than no evidence.

[Gunny]

I think the point you're asserting, and I think I am ready to agree with, is that "evidence," objective and verifiable, would be the kind of validation required of a belief in order for that belief to be meaningful enough to kill someone over.
Despite the evidence in the example you presented being faulty**, it lends far greater meaning to the belief that a violent regime change in Iraq, was necessary for US security, than the superstitious beliefs (for example) some 20 guys had, that flying planes into buildings was necessary to please God.

It is not nearly enough to merely have conviction of right in one's beliefs to take the step over the line into killing people--it's "solid evidence," objective and verifiable evidence, that someone else's belief has lethal intent to one's self; that that makes one's belief meaningful enough to use deadly force in self defense.

Yes?

**BTW: The use of that particular example and you analysis was perfectly appropriate, as it illustrates that faulty evidence is still more validating of beliefs than no evidence.

That would be my point. That and to point out that oftentimes, perception completely distorts reality in that regard, and at times dictates actions otherwise not warranted by factual evidence.