Also

(April 2, 2016 at 3:03 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 2:11 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: "Getting off on mall cop authority". LOL, if you say so, scrub.

Why am I making an issue of this?  Because telling you you've stepped over a line and giving you an opportunity to sort your own shit out saves us a bunch of paperwork, that's why.

To be clear - there's a reason we don't let new members link to outside content.  Copypasting that same content isn't an acceptable workaround.  There is no acceptable workaround.  You get to wait your 30 days and 30 posts just like everyone else, snowflake.

I'll leave you to your unevidenced, unsound wankfest now.

Here's the verbal (sic) warning that I received from Atheistforums.org on trying to copy and paste the link: "You have received a verbal warning from the staff of Atheist Forums. We do not allow new users to post links to outside content until they have reached both 30 days of membership and accrued 30 points. This is clearly highlighted in the rules. (link provided) Please review our rules and refrain from posting links until you have fulfilled these criteria. If you'd like to discuss your 'proof', you may post the text in a regular post. Thanks for your cooperation." So tell me again, how did I step over a line? Look, I've been called a clown, silly and now a scrub by the gentle folk on this forum and I've been reticent about it for the sake of the discussion and frankly, I've been brought up better than retaliating with like. I've posted on theistic forums and the level of class and respect is far and away superior to what is meted out here. But I've dealt with you enough. Have a good day, sir.

rules Wrote:Posting the contents of private correspondence of any kind is not allowed. This includes but is not limited to private messages sent on this site, and email messages. This rule applies even if identifying information such as the sender's name / username is removed.

(April 2, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If by syllogism, you mean an argument that meets the requirements of reason...you still can't get around the requirement of sound propositions.

I hadn't realized that there existed any worldview which could establish its own terms without presuming the validity of argumentation sans evidence.

(April 2, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No. Unless one is arguing only for the validity and consistency of their argument for their worldview...rather than their worldviews truth. Validity and consistency will not demonstrate existence or truth..or book editors would be wizards capable of conjuring dragons. Do you, personally, feel that defining something into existence works? Is that a power that a syllogism possesses?

What is truth?

(April 2, 2016 at 3:03 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 2:11 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: "Getting off on mall cop authority". LOL, if you say so, scrub.

Why am I making an issue of this?  Because telling you you've stepped over a line and giving you an opportunity to sort your own shit out saves us a bunch of paperwork, that's why.

To be clear - there's a reason we don't let new members link to outside content.  Copypasting that same content isn't an acceptable workaround.  There is no acceptable workaround.  You get to wait your 30 days and 30 posts just like everyone else, snowflake.

I'll leave you to your unevidenced, unsound wankfest now.

Here's the verbal (sic) warning that I received from Atheistforums.org on trying to copy and paste the link: "You have received a verbal warning from the staff of Atheist Forums. We do not allow new users to post links to outside content until they have reached both 30 days of membership and accrued 30 points. This is clearly highlighted in the rules. (link provided) Please review our rules and refrain from posting links until you have fulfilled these criteria. If you'd like to discuss your 'proof', you may post the text in a regular post. Thanks for your cooperation." So tell me again, how did I step over a line? Look, I've been called a clown, silly and now a scrub by the gentle folk on this forum and I've been reticent about it for the sake of the discussion and frankly, I've been brought up better than retaliating with like. I've posted on theistic forums and the level of class and respect is far and away superior to what is meted out here. But I've dealt with you enough. Have a good day, sir.

Could it be due to the fact that you're telling them what they want to hear?

I mean, shit man, you're coming into hostile territory, a place that prides itself on the freedom of expression exhibited by the free thinkers who populate the place, all to, what, prove us wrong about god with yet another iteration of an incredibly tired argument that's not at all convincing?  We're supposed to, what, indulge you?

Also, it's pretty clear you didn't even bother to read the rules in place before posting.  Profanity and general insults aren't against the rules.  Posting links before your 30/30 is.  And for all your bitching about being insulted, coming into a new place without learning how things are done, all to play apologist because religion is a lot like Pokemon (gotta catch 'em all!), is exceedingly rude.  Why?  Because it makes it abundantly clear that you're not interested in joining our community, but in merely proving your superiority with a tepid "Checkmate, atheists!" attempt.

We deal with apologists all the time.  You're not due special consideration.  Fuck off.

(April 3, 2016 at 12:22 am)Mudhammam Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If by syllogism, you mean an argument that meets the requirements of reason...you still can't get around the requirement of sound propositions.

I hadn't realized that there existed any worldview which could establish its own terms without presuming the validity of argumentation sans evidence.

(April 2, 2016 at 3:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No. Unless one is arguing only for the validity and consistency of their argument for their worldview...rather than their worldviews truth. Validity and consistency will not demonstrate existence or truth..or book editors would be wizards capable of conjuring dragons. Do you, personally, feel that defining something into existence works? Is that a power that a syllogism possesses?

What is truth?

I'm sure that various people will insist on various definitions, but the one I like is this:

Truth is that which comports with reality.

(April 3, 2016 at 2:27 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(April 2, 2016 at 3:03 pm)smfortune Wrote: Here's the verbal (sic) warning that I received from Atheistforums.org on trying to copy and paste the link: "You have received a verbal warning from the staff of Atheist Forums. We do not allow new users to post links to outside content until they have reached both 30 days of membership and accrued 30 points. This is clearly highlighted in the rules. (link provided) Please review our rules and refrain from posting links until you have fulfilled these criteria. If you'd like to discuss your 'proof', you may post the text in a regular post. Thanks for your cooperation." So tell me again, how did I step over a line? Look, I've been called a clown, silly and now a scrub by the gentle folk on this forum and I've been reticent about it for the sake of the discussion and frankly, I've been brought up better than retaliating with like. I've posted on theistic forums and the level of class and respect is far and away superior to what is meted out here. But I've dealt with you enough. Have a good day, sir.

Could it be due to the fact that you're telling them what they want to hear?

I mean, shit man, you're coming into hostile territory, a place that prides itself on the freedom of expression exhibited by the free thinkers who populate the place, all to, what, prove us wrong about god with yet another iteration of an incredibly tired argument that's not at all convincing?  We're supposed to, what, indulge you?

Also, it's pretty clear you didn't even bother to read the rules in place before posting.  Profanity and general insults aren't against the rules.  Posting links before your 30/30 is.  And for all your bitching about being insulted, coming into a new place without learning how things are done, all to play apologist because religion is a lot like Pokemon (gotta catch 'em all!), is exceedingly rude.  Why?  Because it makes it abundantly clear that you're not interested in joining our community, but in merely proving your superiority with a tepid "Checkmate, atheists!" attempt.

We deal with apologists all the time.  You're not due special consideration.  Fuck off.

I hoped I was coming into an arena where reason and polite debate was cherished, fostered and celebrated. I'm sorry that I was mistaken. Anyway, cheers mate.

---

(April 3, 2016 at 2:37 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(April 3, 2016 at 12:22 am)Mudhammam Wrote: I hadn't realized that there existed any worldview which could establish its own terms without presuming the validity of argumentation sans evidence. What is truth?

I'm sure that various people will insist on various definitions, but the one I like is this:

Truth is that which comports with reality.

Aristotelian truth. I too subscribe to such a definition. Yet, how do we diverge so much?

Then you'd better come up with some evidence and not just philosophical babble.

(April 4, 2016 at 10:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Then you'd better come up with some evidence and not just philosophical babble.

I have much evidence as I've alluded to in previous posts. However, I must set the philosophical stage first. One is not likely to listen to statistical proof if a priori one has written off it's possible existence. The proof I've presented is logic, through and through but that's just the beginning.

Wrong. If your evidence needs to be massaged by babble then it is merely your own brain fart.

Let's see your facts.  We'll decide from there.

(April 4, 2016 at 10:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Wrong. If your evidence needs to be massaged by babble then it is merely your own brain fart.

Let's see your facts.  We'll decide from there.

I thought we decided on Aristotelian truth? Reality decides, not you. I've dealt with enough atheists in my life to know that a mental hurdle must be crossed before they can see evidence (this is true for some theists as well; we have creationists that are as blind as a bat to the evidence of evolution). If the theist suffers from cognitive dissonance, the atheist double so. A true questioning, agnostic/open mind must first be reached before a proper presentation of evidence could be even remotely receptive. I am not a theist because I was first a theist, I am a theist because I became a skeptic.