Question for atheists...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 05:13 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 12:07 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 07:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thank you for taking the time CotW
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-in-Jesus?
I await your response.

"However, I don't think it is a subject that requires the boxing ring".
Ok Cotw. You can do it here then. What makes your version of Christianity worth following? I will throw in God exists and Jesus is his son for the sake of argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 05:16 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 05:01 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 04:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I have my moments Blush

Your posts are brilliant but man call of the wild doesn't care. He will barely read the first sentences.

Didn't write it for him, but for those that read the thread, and especially the "guests" who perhaps sit on the fence, and lurk, read...and ponder. Thumbsup

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
23-03-2016, 05:56 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
I really do wish we had more theists like Jason_delisle, Kingschosen, or Aliza for example. People like CotW, SolipsistShane, and Q aren't interested in conversation. The exchange of ideas and the willingness to learn don't even cross their mind. CotW is STILL using the same nonsense about "kinds", Q still argues from Kalam (debunked before I was born for shit sake) and Shane ..well Shane doesn't even bother to read replies in their entirety and has proven to be more than willing to be outright dishonest/lie as has CotW and Q. They are just..... pollution frankly.
How are CotW's posts any different now then when he first joined? The conversation hasn't evolved at all, it's the same bullshit now as it was back then, then same dogged ignorance and unwillingness to learn, the same threads designed to be as disingenuous in their purpose as can possibly be. We try to teach him evolution, and he just screams about dogs birthing dogs as if that's an argument. Q is just using this forum as another venue for his proselytizing and that's so obvious it's practically tangible. SolipsistShane would be the single best poster-boy for Dunning-Kruger I've ever seen on this forum if he wasn't so blatantly and maliciously a troll. They are a lode that has been mined dry, what good they served as a teaching instrument for the lurkers has been expended. We are just retreading over and over.

I sometimes wish we could take all their shitty arguments, idiotic threads, and examples of dishonesty and put them in their own little section we could use as a reference/source when someone new comes along making the same arguments, and then just get rid of them.

Excommunicate Traitoris the bloody lot of them.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
23-03-2016, 07:14 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 12:03 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 07:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are a willfully ignorant dolt and you sound like a whiny five-year-old.

Read an actual science book. You have no actual understanding of evolution, just some cartoon version in your head.

You've already admitted that if abiogenesis is false, evolution is false. That being said, I have no further use for you, catman.

I said no such thing, you stupid twat.

I said it does not matter how life originated because that is unrelated to the Theory of Evolution.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
23-03-2016, 11:11 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2016 11:45 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 05:56 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I really do wish we had more theists like Jason_delisle, Kingschosen, or Aliza for example. People like CotW, SolipsistShane, and Q aren't interested in conversation. The exchange of ideas and the willingness to learn don't even cross their mind. CotW is STILL using the same nonsense about "kinds", Q still argues from Kalam (debunked before I was born for shit sake) and Shane ..well Shane doesn't even bother to read replies in their entirety and has proven to be more than willing to be outright dishonest/lie as has CotW and Q. They are just..... pollution frankly.
How are CotW's posts any different now then when he first joined? The conversation hasn't evolved at all, it's the same bullshit now as it was back then, then same dogged ignorance and unwillingness to learn, the same threads designed to be as disingenuous in their purpose as can possibly be. We try to teach him evolution, and he just screams about dogs birthing dogs as if that's an argument. Q is just using this forum as another venue for his proselytizing and that's so obvious it's practically tangible. SolipsistShane would be the single best poster-boy for Dunning-Kruger I've ever seen on this forum if he wasn't so blatantly and maliciously a troll. They are a lode that has been mined dry, what good they served as a teaching instrument for the lurkers has been expended. We are just retreading over and over.

I sometimes wish we could take all their shitty arguments, idiotic threads, and examples of dishonesty and put them in their own little section we could use as a reference/source when someone new comes along making the same arguments, and then just get rid of them.

Excommunicate Traitoris the bloody lot of them.
How were you able to compare a list of supposedly nice theists with a list of supposedly bad theists whilst listing a supposed solpsist in the mix? Aren't Solipsists non theists?
Isn't it proper logic to only compare things that have a similar relationship to each other?
You seem to be attempting to compare theists to theists but somehow got a non theist in the mix.
What other similarity would the two seemingly distinct groups have in common if not for your implied theism?
If you did find a similarity between the both groups you listed for what purpose are you using the word theist? What did you hope to achieve?

Concerning your claim that I don't bother to counter your replies:
You mistake a chronological order of counter arguments to some form of evasion.
You shotgun multiple points into a single post and scream evasion when they are not all replied to in a timely and manner regardless of chronology.
When you list multiple related counter arguments to different parts of your opponents claim it is only fitting that said opponent address these replies in chronological order of the way you listed them.
What is the point in counter arguing multiples points simultaneously without first coming to some form of agreement/disagreement to the points in the order they were listed.
It is not proper for anyone to move on in an argument whilst leaving an earlier / relevant argument undecided. Arguments are decided based on conclusions, and a conclusion is decided based on how well it follows it's premises without comitting any logical falacies.
If you wish to have the other points you listed properly addressed you should first deal with the counter arguments properly before moving on to the other points you raised.

What makes it worst is that when you are repeatedly asked to repeat the points that you think have been avoided, you absolutely refuse to do so on the grounds that you have some emotional barrier brought about by a failure to reply to your shot gun arguments.
The one time you finally came forward and repeated a point you thought I had missed, it was indicated to you that you had misread the original post and to date you have never countered the argument. Do you deny this?
After that, numerous attempts were made for you to list more of your unanswered points since the first one was refuted, you specifically stated you no longer wish to discuss the the unanswered posts on the grounds that I missed one of your shot gun arguments.
Once again I am appealing to you to list any argument you think I have missed so that I can address them.
If only you could accept my appeal instead of acting so immature over an evasion you were ultimately responsible for due to shotgun type arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:43 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 11:11 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 05:56 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  I really do wish we had more theists like Jason_delisle, Kingschosen, or Aliza for example. People like CotW, SolipsistShane, and Q aren't interested in conversation. The exchange of ideas and the willingness to learn don't even cross their mind. CotW is STILL using the same nonsense about "kinds", Q still argues from Kalam (debunked before I was born for shit sake) and Shane ..well Shane doesn't even bother to read replies in their entirety and has proven to be more than willing to be outright dishonest/lie as has CotW and Q. They are just..... pollution frankly.
How are CotW's posts any different now then when he first joined? The conversation hasn't evolved at all, it's the same bullshit now as it was back then, then same dogged ignorance and unwillingness to learn, the same threads designed to be as disingenuous in their purpose as can possibly be. We try to teach him evolution, and he just screams about dogs birthing dogs as if that's an argument. Q is just using this forum as another venue for his proselytizing and that's so obvious it's practically tangible. SolipsistShane would be the single best poster-boy for Dunning-Kruger I've ever seen on this forum if he wasn't so blatantly and maliciously a troll. They are a lode that has been mined dry, what good they served as a teaching instrument for the lurkers has been expended. We are just retreading over and over.

I sometimes wish we could take all their shitty arguments, idiotic threads, and examples of dishonesty and put them in their own little section we could use as a reference/source when someone new comes along making the same arguments, and then just get rid of them.

Excommunicate Traitoris the bloody lot of them.
How were you able to compare a list of supposedly nice theists with a list of supposedly bad theists whilst listing a supposed solpsist in the mix? Aren't Solipsists non theists?
Isn't it proper logic to only compare things that have a similar relationship to each other?
You seem to be attempting to compare theists to theists but somehow got a non theist in the mix.
What other similarity would the two seemingly distinct groups have in common if not for your implied theism?
If you did find a similarity between the both groups you listed for what purpose are you using the word theist? What did you hope to achieve?

Talking about you is not the same as talking to you nor is it an invitation to converse and neither is this so shoo you dirty pleb. Away with you!

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
23-03-2016, 11:50 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 11:43 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:11 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  How were you able to compare a list of supposedly nice theists with a list of supposedly bad theists whilst listing a supposed solpsist in the mix? Aren't Solipsists non theists?
Isn't it proper logic to only compare things that have a similar relationship to each other?
You seem to be attempting to compare theists to theists but somehow got a non theist in the mix.
What other similarity would the two seemingly distinct groups have in common if not for your implied theism?
If you did find a similarity between the both groups you listed for what purpose are you using the word theist? What did you hope to achieve?

Talking about you is not the same as talking to you nor is it an invitation to converse and neither is this so shoo you dirty pleb. Away with you!
You never seem to tire of evading a specific objection with such immature behavior, but still have the audacity to call others evasive after shot gunning your arguments at them and ignoring their chronological replies.
Typical is what typical does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:58 PM
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 11:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 11:43 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Talking about you is not the same as talking to you nor is it an invitation to converse and neither is this so shoo you dirty pleb. Away with you!
You never seem to tire of evading a specific objection with such immature behavior, but still have the audacity to call others evasive after shot gunning your arguments at them and ignoring their chronological replies.
Typical is what typical does.

That's nice hunny, go enjoy your crayons, I hesr the purple ones are especially delicious . Shoo peasant, you're boring.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 01:15 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 04:58 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 04:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  This is why I read these threads and what I meant by "nuggets of brilliance"

Heart

Hug I have my moments Blush

Keep them cominĀ“! Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 05:27 AM
RE: Question for atheists...
(23-03-2016 09:40 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 09:06 AM)Commonsensei Wrote:  ...
The difference between ignorance and stupidity comes from the information that is presented.

An ignorant person doesn't have all or any of the information. A stupid person has the information but ether throws it out or can't retain it.

There is much in your post that I agree with. However, for me, intelligence is determined by the way a person assesses new information. When new information is received, it needs to be compared with that person's world view. If the new information doesn't fit logically into the world view, then, either the new information is fallacious or the world view is or both are.

CotW has been presented with lots of new information by a number of people on this forum. Did he consider? No. He rejected that new information.

Another thing that intelligent people do is to reconsider their world view if it is challenged in a logical manner. CotW's world view has been challenged by a number of people from this forum in a number of different ways and at a fairly fundamental level. Did he reconsider his world view? It would appear not.
...

So... I think you are saying that degrees of intelligence are related to the method of assessing (I'd prefer 'processing') information. What about when there is no method? i.e. an absence of the ability to process information?

CotW is rejecting this (not at all) new information. Agreed.

Are you saying he's unintelligently processing it (due to inadequate methodology / lacking some thinking tools) and then rejecting it or that he lacks the ability to process it at all?

If the latter, then it's more to do with input-interface than the processing ability.

Consider

I guess it doesn't matter much as the device is faulty and perhaps should be replaced if it is beyond economic repair ... which in this case, it seems to be.

(23-03-2016 12:12 PM)Leo Wrote:  Call of the wild is the twin brother of Q ?
(23-03-2016 12:19 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...
MY question is, "if life can't come from nonlife, how can life evolve?"
...

Oh! The irony and pathos of this. Wink

They can't be twins ... CotW cannot grasp the concept of a Continuum and is still desperately hanging on to the notion of a life/non-life threshold.

Undecided

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: