Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You still need toI don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.Let's try listening to a reasonable, intelligent atheist explain why you're having this problem with communication. Maybe he can be a model for how your arguments should be constructed, but only if you want them to be compelling and interesting arguments.You haven't understood a word I've said yet so I'm showing you what Carl Sagan and Mark Twain have to say. Now you want me to go back to my own thoughts which you don't understand? Forget it.
If you don't like my thoughts or Sagan's or Twain's then I think your goal is to just frustrate us into leaving this forum.
Talking to you is the intellectual dead end.
I think it is you that should listen to him. Not once have I've seen Sam Harris degrade his opponents. You have instigated this several times here.
While completely failing to notice all the personal investive hurled from the other side. Congratulations, you are in full possession of an atheistic sense of moral relativism.
It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..
Atheists have trust in reason. If I told you the dog down the street told me to shop at Walmart, you and hopefully everyone else would believe I was crazy... or hallucinating, or I was on drugs. But if a holy book talks about a snake or a donkey that talks people don't even give it a second guess. Now I'm not saying every Christian takes all of the bible literally but many do.I don't disagree with CA. Atheists don't have beliefs per se. They have arguments against others having beliefs. God can no more be creation than a painter can be a painting. Looking for proof of God's existence won't be found in the natural world as God is a supernatural being who is not part of our space and time. Atheists require scientific proof of God's existence. That just isn't possible. The best we can do with science is to study what He has created and use that as indirect evidence for His existence. Atheists reject that concept. They argue that we cannot assume that God exists before we can use what He has created as evidence. The problem with that is that it is exactly backwards. That's not even how science works. Science begins by making observations and then formulating an idea of why it is the way it is and then they test that. Atheists on the other hand refuse to test its validity and instead use critical theory arguments to criticize what they don't believe to validate what they do believe. Which by the way can never be proven in the way they want because God is a supernatural being. They have a false belief that they are being critical thinkers but they are not. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you do believe to test its validity. So... atheists don't have beliefs (i.e. critical thinking). They have arguments (i.e. critical theory) against the beliefs of others, but in no way do they have a belief system that they can test. The reality is that believing or not believing is based on a leap of faith. Interestingly enough, the definition of faith is having trust in something. Atheists have trust in nothing.Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.Then I would prefer that you not lump me in with such. You have no idea of my history, or theological training, so referring to me as a "pop culture atheist" is as presumptive as it is insulting.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
You still need to provide evidence of your assertion on post #404 about the blind dogmatic faith of Atheists. I challenged you in post #414. All I hear are crickets chirping.I don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.Let's try listening to a reasonable, intelligent atheist explain why you're having this problem with communication. Maybe he can be a model for how your arguments should be constructed, but only if you want them to be compelling and interesting arguments.
I think it is you that should listen to him. Not once have I've seen Sam Harris degrade his opponents. You have instigated this several times here.
While completely failing to notice all the personal investive hurled from the other side. Congratulations, you are in full possession of an atheistic sense of moral relativism.
It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..
You still need toI don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.Let's try listening to a reasonable, intelligent atheist explain why you're having this problem with communication. Maybe he can be a model for how your arguments should be constructed, but only if you want them to be compelling and interesting arguments.
I think it is you that should listen to him. Not once have I've seen Sam Harris degrade his opponents. You have instigated this several times here.
While completely failing to notice all the personal investive hurled from the other side. Congratulations, you are in full possession of an atheistic sense of moral relativism.
It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..
Atheists have trust in reason. If I told you the dog down the street told me to shop at Walmart, you and hopefully everyone else would believe I was crazy... or hallucinating, or I was on drugs. But if a holy book talks about a snake or a donkey that talks people don't even give it a second guess. Now I'm not saying every Christian takes all of the bible literally but many do.I don't disagree with CA. Atheists don't have beliefs per se. They have arguments against others having beliefs. God can no more be creation than a painter can be a painting. Looking for proof of God's existence won't be found in the natural world as God is a supernatural being who is not part of our space and time. Atheists require scientific proof of God's existence. That just isn't possible. The best we can do with science is to study what He has created and use that as indirect evidence for His existence. Atheists reject that concept. They argue that we cannot assume that God exists before we can use what He has created as evidence. The problem with that is that it is exactly backwards. That's not even how science works. Science begins by making observations and then formulating an idea of why it is the way it is and then they test that. Atheists on the other hand refuse to test its validity and instead use critical theory arguments to criticize what they don't believe to validate what they do believe. Which by the way can never be proven in the way they want because God is a supernatural being. They have a false belief that they are being critical thinkers but they are not. Critical thinking is when you challenge what you do believe to test its validity. So... atheists don't have beliefs (i.e. critical thinking). They have arguments (i.e. critical theory) against the beliefs of others, but in no way do they have a belief system that they can test. The reality is that believing or not believing is based on a leap of faith. Interestingly enough, the definition of faith is having trust in something. Atheists have trust in nothing.Many of your com-padres would disagree. There was a thread here about Atheism being a belief and a religion. To state an atheist only knows what they don't believe is a ridiculous statement. It first implies that an atheists knows nothing about anything else. I'm sure you don't believe the moon is made out of cheese. If there was a name for people not believing the moon was made out of cheese (let's call them noncasiests) then a statement like A Noncasiest only knows what they don't believe would be wrong and ridiculous. I know you are only trying to poke subtle jabs and insults because you actually have no argument. You also said to Czernobog that you are not obliged to call him anything right after you called him a pop culture atheist. Another little jab. How about staying away from ridiculous labels and argue the points.Perhaps you're simply unfamiliar with the term "unified belief system". Obviously there are many different unified belief systems, religious and otherwise. Atheism simply doesn't happen to be one of them. Atheism, if it can even be considered a philosophical model of any kind, comprises no actual beliefs. They only know what they don't believe. Is that clear enough for you? Or can I expect yet another round of knee jerks?You mean like all religious people having a structured philosophy, oh wait, there are over 1000 different religions. Well at least all Christians have a structured philosophy, oh wait there are hundreds of different types of Christianity, in fact some of these differences have been fought over to the death. Not really a unified belief system. The only unified system atheists have is they don't believe in God/gods. It's really that simple.Atheists don't actually have a structured philosophy, so I don't think I'm obliged to call you anything. If atheists had some kind of unified belief system then distinctions of atheism might matter.
Do your own homework junior.Sorry, what post number was that?Point of Order....Your Honor. You haven't bothered to read the thread.Yet you cannot provide evidence of this. I can and already have.It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..I don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.While completely failing to notice all the personal investive hurled from the other side. Congratulations, you are in full possession of an atheistic sense of moral relativism.
Ahem, "Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction."No I don't. I've made the assertion, it's up to you to refute it. End of story.You still need to provide evidence of your assertion on post #404 about the blind dogmatic faith of Atheists. I challenged you in post #414. All I hear are crickets chirping.It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..I don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.While completely failing to notice all the personal investive hurled from the other side. Congratulations, you are in full possession of an atheistic sense of moral relativism.I think it is you that should listen to him. Not once have I've seen Sam Harris degrade his opponents. You have instigated this several times here.
Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playingDo your own homework junior.Sorry, what post number was that?Point of Order....Your Honor. You haven't bothered to read the thread.Yet you cannot provide evidence of this. I can and already have.It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..I don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.
And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playingDo your own homework junior.Sorry, what post number was that?Point of Order....Your Honor. You haven't bothered to read the thread.Yet you cannot provide evidence of this. I can and already have.It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..
And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playingDo your own homework junior.Sorry, what post number was that?Point of Order....Your Honor. You haven't bothered to read the thread.Yet you cannot provide evidence of this. I can and already have.It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..
And yet you seem unable to refute it. You certainly don't demonstrate anything different. You are as wedded to your beliefs as any religious fundamentalist. I wonder if that could be more obvious?Ahem, "Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction."No I don't. I've made the assertion, it's up to you to refute it. End of story.You still need to provide evidence of your assertion on post #404 about the blind dogmatic faith of Atheists. I challenged you in post #414. All I hear are crickets chirping.It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..I don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.While completely failing to notice all the personal investive hurled from the other side. Congratulations, you are in full possession of an atheistic sense of moral relativism.
Argument by assertion - RationalWiki
Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playingDo your own homework junior.Sorry, what post number was that?Point of Order....Your Honor. You haven't bothered to read the thread.Yet you cannot provide evidence of this. I can and already have.
How can one refute when there is no evidence or example of it.And yet you seem unable to refute it. You certainly don't demonstrate anything different. You are as wedded to your beliefs as any religious fundamentalist. I wonder if that could be more obvious?Ahem, "Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction."No I don't. I've made the assertion, it's up to you to refute it. End of story.You still need to provide evidence of your assertion on post #404 about the blind dogmatic faith of Atheists. I challenged you in post #414. All I hear are crickets chirping.It doesn't matter what you say you remember. All anyone needs to do is read..I don't remember anyone else resorting to tell others to follow a model of communication of how arguments should be conducted whilst ignoring it themselves.
Argument by assertion - RationalWiki
For the historic record, here's where mischaracterizations begin. Post # 70. False and misleading assumptions based on conjecture. When did I mention God?You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.
That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.
Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.
Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.
You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playingDo your own homework junior.Sorry, what post number was that?Point of Order....Your Honor. You haven't bothered to read the thread.
Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playingDo your own homework junior.Sorry, what post number was that?
Documentation of what? Anecdotal philosophy?Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playingDo your own homework junior.
Interesting read. However, since I have never attempted to tell anyone else that they should abandon their theistic beliefs, or that being a theist was morally inferior, or, in any other way tried to "convert" anyone to atheism, I don't really see what the article has to do with me.Documentation of what? Anecdotal philosophy?Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.Right, you have nothing. Thanks for playing
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
How would someone like you even begin to know what honesty is when you are so clearly self deluded?Interesting read. However, since I have never attempted to tell anyone else that they should abandon their theistic beliefs, or that being a theist was morally inferior, or, in any other way tried to "convert" anyone to atheism, I don't really see what the article has to do with me.Documentation of what? Anecdotal philosophy?Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.And you evidently have less than nothing to work with. Are you guys the smartest atheists on this forum? I hope not. That would be sad.
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Every post I have made on this forum has been to defend myself against an attack on my choice to be an atheist.
And whether you want to acknowledge it, or not to tell an entire group that they are intellectually inferior (dead end) is an attack. So, don't bother insisting that you have not attacked anyone. Because the fact is you have. You refusing to acknowledge that doesn't make you innocent; it just makes you dishonest.
Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
