Argument of the week
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2010, 03:38 PM
RE: Argument of the week
Gamutman: literalist interpretation is nonsensical. that deals with your whole post I believe.

UnderTheMicroscope: As above, plus one question I'll deal with below

Hi Unbeliever

That many have found the bible to be true has no more meaning that one person finding the same thing. Evidence I/we have, but not the sort you will allow yourself to be open minded enough to take on board.

Entirely successfully if you deny reality; & deny logic.

The burden of proof my friend is upon you if you claim to be able to disprove anything, as you have. I have made no such claim, and I never could. there can be no empirical proof of God. did I not say that enough times already? Ah right - your method is to bang away without reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 03:44 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 03:38 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Gamutman: literalist interpretation is nonsensical. that deals with your whole post I believe.

Ah, so the bible has never been refuted because everyone who tries to refute it is basing their refutation on what the bible actually says. I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 03:47 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 03:38 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Evidence I/we have, but not the sort you will allow yourself to be open minded enough to take on board.

It isn't a matter of being "open-minded". It's a simple matter of logic. The Bible - and the other "evidence" that you have provided - is simply not valid as evidence of God's existence.

Quote:Entirely successfully if you deny reality; & deny logic.

I deny neither reality nor logic. In fact, I embrace both, and pardon me when I say that I think I have a rather better understanding of logic than you do.

This is not meant as an insult. What I've seen from you so far indicates that you have never had any formal classes on logic, and have not taken the time to learn it on your own. Or, if you have, you failed to understand it. Your misunderstanding of the circular logic fallacy indicates this, as does your misunderstanding of the burden of proof.

Quote:The burden of proof my friend is upon you if you claim to be able to disprove anything, as you have.

No, I haven't. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Quote:I have made no such claim, and I never could. there can be no empirical proof of God. did I not say that enough times already?

Yes, you did, and I have already explained why this is untrue - unless you think that God does not exist. You even agreed.

And even if the above were untrue, this would mean nothing except that you were committing the bare assertion fallacy.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 04:11 PM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2010 04:22 PM by fr0d0.)
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 03:44 PM)gamutman Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 03:38 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Gamutman: literalist interpretation is nonsensical. that deals with your whole post I believe.
Ah, so the bible has never been refuted because everyone who tries to refute it is basing their refutation on what the bible actually says. I see.
You're trying to force your opinion of what the bible says, I see. That makes it easy for you I guess.
(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 03:38 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Evidence I/we have, but not the sort you will allow yourself to be open minded enough to take on board.
It isn't a matter of being "open-minded". It's a simple matter of logic. The Bible - and the other "evidence" that you have provided - is simply not valid as evidence of God's existence.
There cannot be empirical evidence of God's existence. But of course you considered that question from the POV that pure logic doesn't exist. Not closed minded at all I agree. Confused

(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Entirely successfully if you deny reality; & deny logic.
I deny neither reality nor logic. In fact, I embrace both, and pardon me when I say that I think I have a rather better understanding of logic than you do.
You refuse to consider pure logic. Period.

(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is not meant as an insult. What I've seen from you so far indicates that you have never had any formal classes on logic, and have not taken the time to learn it on your own. Or, if you have, you failed to understand it. Your misunderstanding of the circular logic fallacy indicates this, as does your misunderstanding of the burden of proof.
Yet you never explain to me my error where I explain your misuse of those fallacies to you. You've hit 2 fails there. Unless you can produce some logic to back up your claims. I'm eager to hear an explanation from you, and would gladly address it. Please stop stating that you're right without backing up what you're saying.

(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The burden of proof my friend is upon you if you claim to be able to disprove anything, as you have.
No, I haven't. Please don't put words in my mouth.
My whole purpose there was to chase positive claims made here of knowledge. You cannot turn around that claim and ask me to back up something I've never said. You need to look past the rhetoric and at what is actually said to you.

(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  [quote]I have made no such claim, and I never could. there can be no empirical proof of God. did I not say that enough times already?
Yes, you did, and I have already explained why this is untrue - unless you think that God does not exist. You even agreed.
Then you will have no problem pointing me to the post.

I'm getting very tired of your adolescent tirade. You misunderstand what is written and then lambast a person before checking that your right. Then you continue to harrass based on your misinterpretation.

(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And even if the above were untrue, this would mean nothing except that you were committing the bare assertion fallacy.
FFS
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 04:23 PM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2010 04:28 PM by UnderTheMicroscope.)
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 04:11 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 03:44 PM)gamutman Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 03:38 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Gamutman: literalist interpretation is nonsensical. that deals with your whole post I believe.
Ah, so the bible has never been refuted because everyone who tries to refute it is basing their refutation on what the bible actually says. I see.
You're trying to force your opinion of what the bible says, I see. That makes it easy for you I guess.

lets clear it up shall we?
so if the bible cannot be taken literally than how should we take it? I'm no expert but I'm sure there have been "metaphorical" refutations of the bible.
I've also heard some say that only SOME of the bible is literal, in which case how can you tell the difference in scripture between what is allegedly fact and what is a metaphor?

so which is it? literal, metaphorical or both? keep in mind 2 of those options can and have been ousted and the third leaves your entire belief up to interpretation by all parties.
explain pure logic to me.
I was not aware I was using unpure logic and would like to immediately correct my mistake

Hey brother christian, with your high and mighty errand, your actions speak so loud, I can't hear a word you're saying.

"This machine kills fascists..."

"Well this machine kills commies!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 04:28 PM
RE: Argument of the week
Of course a perfect god would create a confusing unclear contradictory bible that he needed man to translate over thousands of years into hundreds of languages rather then speak to his people plainly.

I think when the thinking Atheist raised what is likely one of the best facts about the bible that shows quite highly that in no way was this book inspired by a perfect being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 04:38 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 04:11 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It isn't a matter of being "open-minded". It's a simple matter of logic. The Bible - and the other "evidence" that you have provided - is simply not valid as evidence of God's existence.
There cannot be empirical evidence of God's existence.

Answered already. And entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Please stop trying to change the subject.

Quote:But of course you considered that question from the POV that pure logic doesn't exist.

No, I didn't. Stop strawmanning and answer the question.

Quote:
(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Entirely successfully if you deny reality; & deny logic.
I deny neither reality nor logic. In fact, I embrace both, and pardon me when I say that I think I have a rather better understanding of logic than you do.
You refuse to consider pure logic. Period.

"Nuh-uh" is not a recognized logical formula.

Quote:
(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is not meant as an insult. What I've seen from you so far indicates that you have never had any formal classes on logic, and have not taken the time to learn it on your own. Or, if you have, you failed to understand it. Your misunderstanding of the circular logic fallacy indicates this, as does your misunderstanding of the burden of proof.
Yet you never explain to me my error

Yes, I have.

Quote:where I explain your misuse of those fallacies to you.

Your "explanations" were invalid. I told you why.

Quote:You've hit 2 fails there.

Right back at you.

Quote:Unless you can produce some logic to back up your claims.

Already have.

Quote:
(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:The burden of proof my friend is upon you if you claim to be able to disprove anything, as you have.
No, I haven't. Please don't put words in my mouth.
My whole purpose there was to chase positive claims made here of knowledge.

And you have formed straw man positions to attack in lieu of these positive claims actually being present. We have made no such claims. You are making them up.

Quote:
(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:I have made no such claim, and I never could. there can be no empirical proof of God. did I not say that enough times already?
Yes, you did, and I have already explained why this is untrue - unless you think that God does not exist. You even agreed.
Then you will have no problem pointing me to the post.

http://thethinkingatheist.com/forum/show...3#pid11853

Quote:I'm getting very tired of your adolescent tirade. You misunderstand what is written and then lambast a person before checking that your right. Then you continue to harrass based on your misinterpretation.

That's what you're doing, actually.

Quote:
(15-11-2010 03:47 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And even if the above were untrue, this would mean nothing except that you were committing the bare assertion fallacy.
FFS

Which means... what, exactly?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 05:06 PM
RE: Argument of the week
You linked me to my point that you grossly misunderstood Unbeliever, as I've pointed out to you.

Seems there's no point addressing the rest your post. As that would be circular.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 05:12 PM
RE: Argument of the week
(15-11-2010 05:06 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  You linked me to my point that you grossly misunderstood Unbeliever, as I've pointed out to you.

And I pointed out why you were, in turn, mistaken. You misunderstood the implications of what you agreed to in that post.

Quote:Seems there's no point addressing the rest your post. As that would be circular.

No, it wouldn't. Nice dodge, though.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 05:21 PM
RE: Argument of the week
I was mistaken in what I thought I'd written??? Praise be! I've found God!!!

And what exactly is new about your previous post UB? Mr Dodgemtastic? Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: