(July 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: We realize that this is how you operate, but we are the grown-ups who actually know what they mean.

I have yet to see such evidence, is my point.

Debate is wonderful, but you guys name drop names of logical faux pa around like they were insults instead of actually using the example to help make a point, because the argument you reference never actually applies in reality to what you are saying. Hence my point about needing some grown ups to actually contend what is being said rather than all of this meaningless adolescent name calling.

AF.org is a good atheist lead place where sincere people can debate each other fairly and honestly. You guys display the opposite tendancies.

Perhaps we just attract the more pig-headed theists?
Actually, I challenge you to point out where I was incorrect in my assessment of Jeff's past exchange with me and other members here. Had he addressed my arguments head on instead of misconstrewing them past recognition and had he avoided throwing up red herrings about why logic is reliable, my determination of him would have changed accordingly.

(July 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: We realize that this is how you operate, but we are the grown-ups who actually know what they mean.

I have yet to see such evidence, is my point.

Hard to see with your head up your ass.

Quote:Debate is wonderful, but you guys name drop names of logical faux pa around like they were insults instead of actually using the example to help make a point,

So you think we should explain in detail every time you use the same fucking tactical fallacy over again for the ten gazillionth time? Either catch up or drop out.


[qyote] because the argument you reference never actually applies in reality to what you are saying. [/quote]

Bullshit. You don't acknowledge it and avoid it in the future when it's explained to you in detail anyway. explaining it again is just wastign our time on you.

Quote:Hence my point about needing some grown ups to actually contend what is being said rather than all of this meaningless adolescent name calling.

That's what you get when you play this infantile game of ignoring when you are corrected and pulling the same bullshit over and over.

Quote:AF.org is a good atheist lead place where sincere people can debate each other fairly and honestly. You guys display the opposite tendancies.

Hardly. You aren't fooling anyone but your fellow trolls.

(July 15, 2012 at 1:53 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Welsh Cake, a person telling me he has no knowledge that we have free-will or even believes we have no free-will, is not a proof to me, nor should it be, that I have no knowledge of free-will.

Look sunshine, you're the one making claims here. Acknowledging a lack of knowledge is not a claim to knowledge.

Quote:I making analogy with this, because, it seems to me, Atheists treat the issue of God with special pleading.

How is a lack of belief special pleading?

Quote:However, when it comes to God, they are upset at believers believing.

So long as it doesn't hurt my health or wealth I couldn't give a flying shit what you believe in.

Quote:It's a overwhelming common belief, most believers can't seem to recall when they ever didn't believe in God, yet you guys are asserting with confidence, there is no such knowledge, and that the onus is upon the believers to bring some rigorously sound argument to prove God.

Yes the burden of proof is on you. Don't like it? Well put up or shut up. Prove the god you believe exists once and for all, or go away.

Quote:When you state things like "What is spirituality?", well believers understand

Stop. I asked you a simple fucking question.

And you're telling me you can't or won't answer it? Seriously?

Quote:Just as believers shouldn't impose their belief on God towards disbelievers, neither should disbelievers impose their disbelief.

Yeah that "agree to disagree" bullcrap isn't going to fly here, not when you drag god into an ontological/epistemic dispute.

(July 15, 2012 at 12:38 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Morality has applicable value for survival, does it mean because we need it, it has no real authority and is but a delusion?

Don't believe I ever said that God is a failed hypothesis because it is derived from human need. Actually, I cited logic as a human need that has proven itself. Morality has nothing to do with this, and is a terrible analogy.

(July 15, 2012 at 12:38 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: While I agree with you that fear of death motivates people to believe in God, love of loved ones, that doesn't anyway disprove we have knowledge of God.

I never said that because people derived God from fear, God doesn't exist. My, how stupid do you take me to be? Read me post again, you certainly didn't get it.
My point was that there isn't inherent knowledge of God as proven by the thought experiment I set out for you. Simple, but tried and true.

(July 15, 2012 at 3:47 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: So you think we should explain in detail every time you use the same fucking tactical fallacy over again <snip>

Well the onus is upon you to demonstrate any error. You consistently fail to do so, and thus fail to give any onlooker the chance to credit you with any point, as no point is ever made.

@ Skepsis: I counter challenge you to show me just one example of a point successfully made. From what I've seen, you do the same as Taq above does. Fling your arms in the air, windmill like, and expect us all to take your word for it.

Be consice and direct, and let us all in on this secret you so carefully guard.

Because the concept doesn't really add up. The bible for examples has many teachings, stories and claims that just don't add up or in fact contradict each other one way or the other. Further more i don't need a "church" to tell me how to be a friendly being, i know what is seen as proper and adequate so no thanks spare me the lectures.

Creation is another thing. As a young boy i read about evolution and the big bang two concepts i found very interesting and very believable

(July 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 15, 2012 at 3:47 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: So you think we should explain in detail every time you use the same fucking tactical fallacy over again <snip>

Well the onus is upon you to demonstrate any error. You consistently fail to do so, and thus fail to give any onlooker the chance to credit you with any point, as no point is ever made.

We have demonstrated your errors so many times we are sick of it. You refuse to acknowledge it and refuse to correct yourself. Any reasonable onlooker can see these things for themselves, or ask if unsure. Trolls like you are unwilling and will not.

Quote:From what I've seen, you do the same as Taq above does. Fling your arms in the air, windmill like, and expect us all to take your word for it.

If you pick islam you would go to christian hell. If you pick christianity you would go to muslim hell. You're fucked either way.

(July 15, 2012 at 6:57 pm)Opsnyder Wrote: If you pick islam you would go to christian hell. If you pick christianity you would go to muslim hell. You're fucked either way.

Kinky.

(July 15, 2012 at 5:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @ Skepsis: I counter challenge you to show me just one example of a point successfully made. From what I've seen, you do the same as Taq above does. Fling your arms in the air, windmill like, and expect us all to take your word for it.

Be consice and direct, and let us all in on this secret you so carefully guard.

Making a challenge you know I couldn't possibly win?
How am I going to successfully make a point when Jeff only wants to dodge, strawman, and red-herring himself our of my points?
On that note, by not actually going through with my challenge, I can take it to mean that you found no error in my line of reasoning.
Why don't you take up Jeff's position? I'll show you why his arguments are wrong just like I showed him. He has yet to even respond to my rebuttal of his points, if you can call them that.