Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2016, 02:03 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(31-03-2016 01:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm sorry. Were you operating under the assumption that I wasn't playing?

I haven't taken any discussion with you seriously in... oh, several weeks now. You have yet to establish that you are worth the effort. The fact that your response to "this is a fallacy, and here's why" is to simply reiterate the fallacy is just one of many failings you have demonstrated over the past few months here.

I've explained WHY it wasn't a fallacy...let's discuss that, shall we? Please explain why you think I am committing the fallacy of equivocation. I will wait Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 02:07 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(31-03-2016 02:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I've explained WHY it wasn't a fallacy...

No, you didn't. You reiterated upon the fallacy. You, in fact, doubled down on how wrong you were.

"Comes into existence from nothing" is not equivalent to "comes into existence from pre-existing material". Attempting to act as though they are, as your argument relies upon, is fallacious equivocation.

There is nothing else to be said. You cannot get around this. This is the definition of fallacious equivocation.

You are, as always, quite flatly wrong.

Of course, this has all been explained before, in equally simple terms, on multiple occasions across multiple threads. You neither understand nor care, and your next post will either be another of your "SMH" attempts at dodging the issue or yet another reiteration of the initial fallacy.

Because you are very, very bad at this.

"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
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
31-03-2016, 02:18 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2016 04:58 PM by Leo.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(31-03-2016 02:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 01:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm sorry. Were you operating under the assumption that I wasn't playing?

I haven't taken any discussion with you seriously in... oh, several weeks now. You have yet to establish that you are worth the effort. The fact that your response to "this is a fallacy, and here's why" is to simply reiterate the fallacy is just one of many failings you have demonstrated over the past few months here.

I've explained WHY it wasn't a fallacy...let's discuss that, shall we? Please explain why you think I am committing the fallacy of equivocation. I will wait Cool
When Chuck Norris was a infant , his parents gave him a hammer, he gave the world Stonehenge. When Chuck Norris was born, the doctor was the only who cried , never slap Chuck Norris. When you say no one is perfect, Chuck Norris takes it as a personal insult. Chuck Norris can built a snowman out of rain. When Chuck Norris exercises the machine gets stronger. There is not such a thing as a Tornado- only thing aftermath of Chuck Norris sneeze. When Chuck Norris do push-ups , he isn't lifting himself up; he is pushing the earth down.Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leo's post
31-03-2016, 03:34 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(31-03-2016 02:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you didn't. You reiterated upon the fallacy. You, in fact, doubled down on how wrong you were.

"Comes into existence from nothing" is not equivalent to "comes into existence from pre-existing material". Attempting to act as though they are, as your argument relies upon, is fallacious equivocation.

There is nothing else to be said. You cannot get around this. This is the definition of fallacious equivocation.

There is something to be said. First of all, you are attacking straw man. I never said nor implied that "comes into existence from nothing" is equivalent to "comes into existence from pre-existing material".

When I made the analogy about the "house", I was referring to Clyde when he said that the "rocks & stars" BEGAN to exist "presumably into those forms" (post #1222)...in other words, he is saying that rocks & stars began to exist, being formed from PREEXISTING material.

The point is, he is acknowledging the fact that the rocks and the stars BEGAN to exist, even if they came from preexisting material.

So basically, he said nothing to negate what I said regarding my statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause", because even in his own example, the rocks & stars did not begin to exist without a cause.

So no one is equivocating anything, as I never mentioned nor compared your absurd notion of "things popping into being out of nothing"...I didn't even discuss that nonsense with him.

This is just a failed "gotcha" moment on your part. Just do yourself a favor and NOT type my way...otherwise, look forward to more ownage Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 05:01 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(31-03-2016 03:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  There is something to be said. First of all, you are attacking straw man. I never said nor implied that "comes into existence from nothing" is equivalent to "comes into existence from pre-existing material".

Yes, you did. You make that mistake every time that you present the cosmological argument, the argument from first cause, or whatever other name you want to slap onto the same fallacy.

The cosmological argument is based on this equivocation. Without it, it must admit that its central premise - "everything that exists has a cause" - is bare assertion, and that thus it can be discarded as worthless.

This has also been explained before. Many, many times.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
31-03-2016, 05:14 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(31-03-2016 03:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 02:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you didn't. You reiterated upon the fallacy. You, in fact, doubled down on how wrong you were.

"Comes into existence from nothing" is not equivalent to "comes into existence from pre-existing material". Attempting to act as though they are, as your argument relies upon, is fallacious equivocation.

There is nothing else to be said. You cannot get around this. This is the definition of fallacious equivocation.

There is something to be said. First of all, you are attacking straw man. I never said nor implied that "comes into existence from nothing" is equivalent to "comes into existence from pre-existing material".

When I made the analogy about the "house", I was referring to Clyde when he said that the "rocks & stars" BEGAN to exist "presumably into those forms" (post #1222)...in other words, he is saying that rocks & stars began to exist, being formed from PREEXISTING material.

The point is, he is acknowledging the fact that the rocks and the stars BEGAN to exist, even if they came from preexisting material.

So basically, he said nothing to negate what I said regarding my statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause", because even in his own example, the rocks & stars did not begin to exist without a cause.

So no one is equivocating anything, as I never mentioned nor compared your absurd notion of "things popping into being out of nothing"...I didn't even discuss that nonsense with him.

This is just a failed "gotcha" moment on your part. Just do yourself a favor and NOT type my way...otherwise, look forward to more ownage Yes

The best way to determine Chuck Norris age is to cut him in half and count the rings. Chuck Norris never gets brain freeze. Chuck Norris lost both his legs in a car accident but was still able to walk off. For Chuck Norris every street is one way ( his way). Chuck Norris pulse is measured on the richter scale. Chuck Norris can kill 2 stones with one bird. Chuck Norris infact build Rome in one day. Chuck Norris never loses his way because all roads lead to Chuck Norris. Outer space exists because it's afraid to be in the same planet with Chuck Norris.ThumbsupThumbsupHoboYesTongue

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
31-03-2016, 05:29 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(31-03-2016 05:14 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 03:34 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  There is something to be said. First of all, you are attacking straw man. I never said nor implied that "comes into existence from nothing" is equivalent to "comes into existence from pre-existing material".

When I made the analogy about the "house", I was referring to Clyde when he said that the "rocks & stars" BEGAN to exist "presumably into those forms" (post #1222)...in other words, he is saying that rocks & stars began to exist, being formed from PREEXISTING material.

The point is, he is acknowledging the fact that the rocks and the stars BEGAN to exist, even if they came from preexisting material.

So basically, he said nothing to negate what I said regarding my statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause", because even in his own example, the rocks & stars did not begin to exist without a cause.

So no one is equivocating anything, as I never mentioned nor compared your absurd notion of "things popping into being out of nothing"...I didn't even discuss that nonsense with him.

This is just a failed "gotcha" moment on your part. Just do yourself a favor and NOT type my way...otherwise, look forward to more ownage Yes

The best way to determine Chuck Norris age is to cut him in half and count the rings. Chuck Norris never gets brain freeze. Chuck Norris lost both his legs in a car accident but was still able to walk off. For Chuck Norris every street is one way ( his way). Chuck Norris pulse is measured on the richter scale. Chuck Norris can kill 2 stones with one bird. Chuck Norris infact build Rome in one day. Chuck Norris never loses his way because all roads lead to Chuck Norris. Outer space exists because it's afraid to be in the same planet with Chuck Norris.ThumbsupThumbsupHoboYesTongue

Does Chuck like stir-fry ? If so, we'd like some of his favorite recipes.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 06:29 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(31-03-2016 05:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 05:14 PM)Leo Wrote:  The best way to determine Chuck Norris age is to cut him in half and count the rings. Chuck Norris never gets brain freeze. Chuck Norris lost both his legs in a car accident but was still able to walk off. For Chuck Norris every street is one way ( his way). Chuck Norris pulse is measured on the richter scale. Chuck Norris can kill 2 stones with one bird. Chuck Norris infact build Rome in one day. Chuck Norris never loses his way because all roads lead to Chuck Norris. Outer space exists because it's afraid to be in the same planet with Chuck Norris.ThumbsupThumbsupHoboYesTongue

Does Chuck like stir-fry ? If so, we'd like some of his favorite recipes.
The only thing that I can tell you is that nothing can escape the gravity of the black hole except for Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris eats black holes , they taste like chicken.

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
01-04-2016, 07:52 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(31-03-2016 12:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...
That being said, I have to give you props, Unbeliever. I knew that what I said was PROBABLY going to get called out on, regarding what APPEARS to be an equivocation. It does appear to be at first glance, and you were *cough* smart enough to see something fishy there.

However, you were still WRONG in your assessment, but you get props nevertheless. Just take the props, because I don't give out many on here..not many people worthy. But this one was.

Thumbsup

Again ... another classic misreading of what's happening here. It seems to be becoming a trademark.

You'll have to give 'props' to everyone here with visual / olfactory capabilities (and to anyone who can un-mix your metaphors).

The only debate in the mind of the reader / smeller is ... was that a deliberate attempt at a lame Lane Craig-style sleight of hand or does he genuinely not understand the ex nihilo / ex materia distinction?

'Props' should be given to Unbeliever because he's still bothering.

(31-03-2016 01:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...
I haven't taken any discussion with you seriously in... oh, several weeks now. You have yet to establish that you are worth the effort.
...

In the crappy hollywood movie of this thread, this is the moment when Professor Unbeliever pretends to give up on the obstinate but <insert some positive trait like feeding a family of 9 brothers and sisters by working 3 jobs> student with the "Do you want me to give up on you too, like everyone else in your life ... :dramatic pause: ... just as you've given up on yourself" speech.

For those who want to know how it ends:

The Professor dies (off stage) as the de-converted and hence now useful member of society, CotW, having become a famous philosopher and evolutionary psychologist, is receiving his Richard Dawkins Award for services to Atheism.

Sadcryface

Ya. I know. It gets you right here, doesn't it :sniff sniff:


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
01-04-2016, 09:10 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(01-04-2016 07:52 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 12:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...
That being said, I have to give you props, Unbeliever. I knew that what I said was PROBABLY going to get called out on, regarding what APPEARS to be an equivocation. It does appear to be at first glance, and you were *cough* smart enough to see something fishy there.

However, you were still WRONG in your assessment, but you get props nevertheless. Just take the props, because I don't give out many on here..not many people worthy. But this one was.

Thumbsup

Again ... another classic misreading of what's happening here. It seems to be becoming a trademark.

You'll have to give 'props' to everyone here with visual / olfactory capabilities (and to anyone who can un-mix your metaphors).

The only debate in the mind of the reader / smeller is ... was that a deliberate attempt at a lame Lane Craig-style sleight of hand or does he genuinely not understand the ex nihilo / ex materia distinction?

'Props' should be given to Unbeliever because he's still bothering.

(31-03-2016 01:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  ...
I haven't taken any discussion with you seriously in... oh, several weeks now. You have yet to establish that you are worth the effort.
...

In the crappy hollywood movie of this thread, this is the moment when Professor Unbeliever pretends to give up on the obstinate but <insert some positive trait like feeding a family of 9 brothers and sisters by working 3 jobs> student with the "Do you want me to give up on you too, like everyone else in your life ... :dramatic pause: ... just as you've given up on yourself" speech.

For those who want to know how it ends:

The Professor dies (off stage) as the de-converted and hence now useful member of society, CotW, having become a famous philosopher and evolutionary psychologist, is receiving his Richard Dawkins Award for services to Atheism.

Sadcryface

Ya. I know. It gets you right here, doesn't it :sniff sniff:


Interpreter, anyone?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: