"If atheism were true...."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  He addressed it.

It is naturalism.

If anyone disagrees with it then they are non-naturalists like I am.

Please provide a quote of him addressing it. You can't. Because he didn't.

You are utterly dishonest.

the "gushing out a bunch of assertions" and "garbage logic" is what he referred to my summation as.

if he did not address my summation with these remarks then he needs to say so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 02:18 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  He addressed it.

It is naturalism.

If anyone disagrees with it then they are non-naturalists like I am.

What is naturalism?

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 02:19 PM
"If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  He didn't address that summary at all, yet you presume an answer.
Another entirely dishonest post. You are shameless.

He addressed it.

It is naturalism.

If anyone disagrees with it then they are non-naturalists like I am.

Define your beliefs and show how they are rationally founded.

What's a naturalist? John Muir?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
I just fell out of my chair.

What is naturalism? they just asked me....

I can't be on The Thinking Atheist forum....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
16-05-2014, 02:23 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 02:31 PM by rampant.a.i..)
"If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please provide a quote of him addressing it. You can't. Because he didn't.

You are utterly dishonest.

the "gushing out a bunch of assertions" and "garbage logic" is what he referred to my summation as.

if he did not address my summation with these remarks then he needs to say so.

Your Gish gallop has nothing to do with what was being discussed: WLC's intellectual dishonesty.

I said WLC is intellectually dishonest.

You responded that this was an ad hominem that would make WLC giggle.

I showed you specifics of how WLC had been intellectually dishonest, and a quote where he supported intellectual dishonesty as correct for prosthelizing.

You responded
[Image: du6y3yjy.jpg]


If you have an argument to make about "naturalism" or whatever you're on about, make a thread.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
16-05-2014, 02:24 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please provide a quote of him addressing it. You can't. Because he didn't.

You are utterly dishonest.

the "gushing out a bunch of assertions" and "garbage logic" is what he referred to my summation as.

if he did not address my summation with these remarks then he needs to say so.

That was not in response - that post preceded yours. You are not only a liar, but a stupid one.

You're not good at this.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 02:31 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  the "gushing out a bunch of assertions" and "garbage logic" is what he referred to my summation as.

if he did not address my summation with these remarks then he needs to say so.

That was not in response - that post preceded yours. You are not only a liar, but a stupid one.

You're not good at this.

1:45 which is when I posted what I did comes BEFORE 2:01 which was when he posted his response.

Whats wrong with you lol?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 02:37 PM
"If atheism were true...."
[Image: uganuhyp.jpg]

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 01:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 01:32 PM)Impulse Wrote:  It's interesting that you see it that way. You see, I make absolutely no assumption about what audience members are thinking or perceiving because I can't know whether they don't recognize Craig's misuse of "atheism" and are being mislead, or they do recognize it and stay quiet, or they assume he means "in a world without God" as you suggested. But, the larger point is it's Craig's intention to mislead which is made obvious by his own statements (one of which was pointed out already in this thread).

Furthermore, what you claim Craig implied is simply your interpretation and probably isn't what he implied at all. Read some of his own statements. He's dishonest and even indirectly admits it when he describes his own dishonest methods. That makes it far more likely that he is deliberately being dishonest again here.

Audience members aren't going to say anything during a debate unless they are given permission to ask questions. An opponent may not say anything because the opponent may believe there are more important points to be raised in the limited time allotted. Not raising an objection is proof of nothing and it's fallacious to assume that it supports a specific reaction to the misuse of the word.

Which is exactly why the reactions are probably varied and you can't assume you know what any one of them is thinking, let alone classifying them in a whole group mentality as though they aren't individuals. Talk about not giving them enough credit. Rolleyes

When faced with the choice of determining who is more qualified to speak on what is entailed in a godless view of reality, I look for credentials.

You have none that I know of. Craig's credentials are public information and his works, many of which appear in scholarly publications, are available as well.

If I were to find Doctors of philosophy making a stink over this issue I would bother to investigate it.

Since it is an issue primarily for internet infidels who have no credentials, I take it with a grain of salt.
Damn, has anyone seen those goalposts? I could have sworn they were here last time I looked!

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
16-05-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:01 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 01:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am glad you said that last bit.

I believe it too.

When atheists who are naturalists reject reality and imagine their lives to be something they are not, they in no way change the fact that the cosmos is indifferent and that they like a mosquito exist because natural forces acting on matter just so happen to come together at the right time, in the right place, in the right amounts for no reason or purpose and without any superintendence whatsoever.

And you would have me believe I am gullible and credulous?

The mere fact that you or anyone who believes something so patently preposterous could accuse someone of being credulous or gullible is laughable.

You've been shown to be mistaken, and yet again are attempting to shift the conversation to a different topic by Gishing out a bunch of unsupported assertions.

I really do feel sorry for you. You're incapable of admitting when you're wrong, so you obfuscate by vomiting garbage logic, expecting someone to leap in and mop it up, and forget your last glaring mistake.

No wonder you idolize someone like WLC.
Absolutely dead on! If I could "like" this twice, I would.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: