BlackRiven wrote:
You're right, I really am at a disadvantage at this point.
Basically what happened here is this:
I wasn't expecting to get into a debate about definitions to begin with, so when Johnny started asking questions like 'what constitutes logic', I didn't give that much thought. Johnny does appear to know more about proper definitions than I do (and philosophy in general).
Actually, the debate wasn't about definitions to begin with, it was about the fact that different people have different beliefs about things based on their different, chosen philosophies on life. It became about definitions, I suppose, when it started to become evident that your definitions of "proof" and "evidence" were strictly naturalistic, and this prevented you from seeing outside that box of naturalism.
BlackRiven wrote:
My main philosophical interest was always the art of debate (how to construct and analyze an argument, logical fallacies, etc), so when I enter an argument, I intend it to be analytical. Johnny put me in a position that in order to advance I had to manage definitions correctly, which was a task I was bound to lose since I came unprepared. Basically, I wanted to do math, he insisted on defining math first.
That's great that you have an interest in debate, I strongly encourage your endeavors in pursuing mastery in that area! However, you need to realize that this debate between us was indeed analytical, and the analyses uncovered your naturalist philosophy through the way you define the world around you. It's fine for you to choose that philosopy, but you're not going to get anywhere arguing it in a philosophical debate, and you're certainly going to come off as wanting to impose your philosophy when you call those who have different philosophies or their philosophies themselves "silly".
Your analogy about "wanting to do math" doesn't work here. It wasn't so much about definition as me proving your analyses wrong, and then your attempts to impose your own definitions upon generally accepted definitions for certain terms, which indicated that your starting premise was a narrow, myopic one.
As you learn more about debate and argument, and logic, you will learn that preparedness is essential, particularly concerning defintions. You'll also learn that if you use a different definition or connotation of a term from that which is the generally accepted one, you would need to identify it beforehand and gain agreement from your opponent. In fact, in formal debates, it's in very poor form to go back and redefine a word, and frequently that will constitute the sole cause for a debator to lose his debate.
BlackRiven wrote:
My original intention was finding out Johnny's oppinions about FSM, I'm used to see Atheists analyzing religious arguments, but not vice versa, and I was curious as to what he might say.
I'd be happy to talk on that further. I do believe I made my thinking on FSM clear in my previous posts, but I would have been happy to expand upon it, had there been any questions.
BlackRiven wrote:
However, regarding his attitude, I maintain that it was out of place. I don't believe my choise of words was any worse than that of some people he most likely met, nor was I preaching. Since he viewed this as inability to accept a different point of view, this shouldn't have caused such an angry reaction. I understand that he is used to see this in combination with an attack on religious beliefs, but I don't believe I gave him a reason to make the association, and even if the association was made I expect people to exercise restrain, as I did throughout the entire debate, and not turn it into a tool to vent emotions.
Fair enough. I will admit to having been offended and then speaking condescendingly in return. I'm a little bothered by your statement that you don't believe you said anything that wouldn't lend to my being offended or returning your condescension. You called religious people and/or their beliefs "silly". That's offensive to anyone who is not an atheist, anyone who believes that there is a supernatural at all, and particularly those who live their lives in accordance with a particular faith or religion. It really bothers me that either you can't see that or, if you can, then you are lying about not believing you said anything offensive.
As for the times when I was over the line and used ad hom attacks on you (such as calling you a moron), I do apologize for that sincerely. But the condescension on my end is not something I'm prepared to feel sorry for, seeing how you were condescending with your remarks about the "silliness" of religion/religious people and their arguments, whether or not you even realize how condescending you were .
BlackRiven wrote:
Second, so that it would be clear to Johnny and everybody that were reading what my position was and where I was coming from, I will summarize it.
I guess that Johnny's definition of 'neturalist' point of view would indeed describe my position in the best way, but I resent it still because it has a limitation which doesn't suits my oppinion. Here's what I think:
1)Everything that exists does so regardless of any condition.
2)Anything that exists and can be sensed, or its interaction with our world can be sensed- can be proven to exist.
That includes the paranormal. If the paranormal exists, and interacts with our world- it can be proven that it exists. Perhaps that turns paranormal into 'normal', which makes my view neturalistic, but it doesn't matter to me because I don't make that kind of distinction, I only care if something can be precieved, or if it interacts with our world. If the paranormal can interact with our world, proving its existance through that shouldn't change its features- it'll remain the same paranormal.
A couple things about this part of your post:
First, I'm really curious as to why you simultaneously appear to accept my definition of your philosophy as "naturalist" while also resenting it. What about it do you resent? What part of the naturalist philosophy does not jibe with your actual beliefs?
Second, your explanation of your beliefs seems to be a bit convoluted, and to me it's a clear indication of the confusion you have in your own mind about your own beliefs. It seems that you want to allow room for the existence of paranormal and supernatural, yet you want to deny their existence based on the lack of physical proof or evidence for them. It sounds to me like you have to do more thinking about what you actually want to believe and make a choice, particularly before you decide to assert your own belief choice over those of others.
Lastly, regarding the above segment of your post, you do need to understand the definitions of things better in order to more effectively communicate your own belief choice. Your use of the word "paranormal" is the clearest indication of this. here is the definition of "paranormal":
par‧a‧nor‧mal /ˌpærəˈnɔrməl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-nawr-muhl]
–adjective of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1915–20; para-1 + normal]
Basically, if you're going to acknowledge the existence of the paranormal, you are admitting that there is a realm outside of the natural by which things become paranormal. If, on the other hand, you truly believe that things don't exist if they can't be proven through our physical senses, then there is no such thing, to you, as "the paranormal", but rather there are myths and legends about paranormal activity.
BlackRiven wrote:
If I'm mixing up the definition, Johnny, then it's because I don't define it in such a way to begin with, and I'm not arguing from that definition. I'm reaching this argument because it's what's following from my premises.
If what affects our world can be proven to exist, and paranormal affects our world, it should be possible to prove its existance.
In essence, what you are saying is that if paranormal activity can become "normal" and therefore proven in accordance with scientific/naturalist standards, then you will accept it, which is just a roundabout way of saying that you'll never accept the paranormal.
BlackRiven wrote:
Lastly, I would like to use this reply as a call to you (Johnny) to end the aminosity between us. I believe that though you've obviously been offended, it should be clear by now that it wasn't my intention, and I see no reason for the hostility to continue. I'm willing to overlook the things you said, as I'm hoping you can accept that no offence was meant on my behalf. Whatever disagreements we have, philosophical or otherwise, don't have to be a source of ill feelings.
I agree, I would like end whatever animosity that there may exist between us, although I hope you don't overlook the things I said, but rather take them to heart. I harbor no ill feelings towards you. I do hope, however, that you learn something out of all this and refrain from being so condescending towards "religious people" in the future.
Bear in mind that many, if not the majority, of people are religious in one way or another, and when you call religious beliefs "silly" you are calling the people who hold religious beliefs "silly" as well.