(March 8, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Huggy74 dodges more than a dodgeball player!

If you can dodge a logical argument, you can dodge a ball!

(March 9, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 9, 2015 at 5:05 pm)robvalue Wrote: Right!

Now tell me what's wrong with this question:

"Who created the universe?"

There's 2 points available.

"who created the universe" isn't a yes or no question.
"I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

I never said it was a yes or no question. I was trying to make a further point.

So I'll spell it out myself:

1) The question assumes that the universe was created
2) The question further assumes that some sort of sentient agency did the creating (Who)

So that's an example of a doubly loaded question. By answering "I don't know" you could be seen as acknowledging the premise of the question. So instead you should say I don't answer loaded questions.

(March 9, 2015 at 5:52 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Buggy's meltdown in this thread is Internet gold.

(March 9, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 9, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: My questions are relevant to the subject.

What M'colleague Snake Oil said: content isn't the issue, but rather the way you want to frame the answer. To be clear, despite your protestations the question about beating your wife really isn't irrelevant, in that its relevancy is directly related to the context it's asked in, and there wasn't any context to the question. It's literally impossible for the question to be either relevant or irrelevant, because there's no framework for it to be relevant within.

No, the issue is that the question and the way the answer is to be formulated makes the question leading; it's designed to draw you toward a single answer or set of answers, and may in fact leave you unable to give a truthful answer. That's the problem both with the example, and your questions generally: you ask something that requires qualifiers and details to properly reflect the position of the answerer, but demand the response come in a format that prevents them from providing that accurate information. You've now manipulated the parameters of the question to force your opposite numbers to skirt close to, if not outright engage in, a lie that's more useful for your position than the truth.

The question of whether of not Denmark Has a secular government is very easy to answer. Either separation of church and state exists or it doesn't.
You hypocrites whine about 10 commandments being displayed on government property, yet consider people being automatically made a member of the Church of Denmark, without their consent, secular. Not to mention a portion of peoples tax dollars go to the church, regardless of religion. yet you still consider it secular.

If this same scenario was to be introduced in America, you atheists would pitch a fit, but in the case of Denmark, it's secularism.
Who's being dishonest?

I gave you your own definitions on what secularism is and Denmark clearly doesn't meet those standards, yet it's still secular.
Who's being dishonest?

Just face the facts, it's would be far easier to convince you of the non-secularism of Denmark than the existence of a God. You clearly cannot accept the evidence that Denmark is indeed NOT secular, proving there is no amount of evidence of there being a God that you will accept.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. - Luke 16:31

Anyone willing to answer the question yet?

---

(March 10, 2015 at 7:15 am)robvalue Wrote: I never said it was a yes or no question. I was trying to make a further point.

So I'll spell it out myself:

1) The question assumes that the universe was created
2) The question further assumes that some sort of sentient agency did the creating (Who)

So that's an example of a doubly loaded question. By answering "I don't know" you could be seen as acknowledging the premise of the question. So instead you should say I don't answer loaded questions.

No one asked that question though, did they?
I proposed three scenarios.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31826-po...#pid888702

(March 2, 2015 at 12:00 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: As far as my proposal being "silliness", I going to list three scenarios, Pick the one that is least silly according to what you know to be possible/impossible.

1. The universe created itself.
2. The universe was created by an intelligent being.
3. The universe has always existed.

If you have a fourth scenario, then by all means, let me hear it.

Also, if you think I've asked any loaded question, be specific and quote what I said.

(March 10, 2015 at 9:57 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I proposed three scenarios.
1. The universe created itself.
2. The universe was created by an intelligent being.
3. The universe has always existed.

Good lord Huggy, the fact that you think those 3 scenarios encapsulate the question of how/if the universe began just demonstrates the futility of discussion with you.

(March 10, 2015 at 9:57 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 9, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What M'colleague Snake Oil said: content isn't the issue, but rather the way you want to frame the answer. To be clear, despite your protestations the question about beating your wife really isn't irrelevant, in that its relevancy is directly related to the context it's asked in, and there wasn't any context to the question. It's literally impossible for the question to be either relevant or irrelevant, because there's no framework for it to be relevant within.

No, the issue is that the question and the way the answer is to be formulated makes the question leading; it's designed to draw you toward a single answer or set of answers, and may in fact leave you unable to give a truthful answer. That's the problem both with the example, and your questions generally: you ask something that requires qualifiers and details to properly reflect the position of the answerer, but demand the response come in a format that prevents them from providing that accurate information. You've now manipulated the parameters of the question to force your opposite numbers to skirt close to, if not outright engage in, a lie that's more useful for your position than the truth.

The question of whether of not Denmark Has a secular government is very easy to answer. Either separation of church and state exists or it doesn't.
You hypocrites whine about 10 commandments being displayed on government property, yet consider people being automatically made a member of the Church of Denmark, without their consent, secular. Not to mention a portion of peoples tax dollars go to the church, regardless of religion. yet you still consider it secular.

If this same scenario was to be introduced in America, you atheists would pitch a fit, but in the case of Denmark, it's secularism.
Who's being dishonest?

I gave you your own definitions on what secularism is and Denmark clearly doesn't meet those standards, yet it's still secular.
Who's being dishonest?

Just face the facts, it's would be far easier to convince you of the non-secularism of Denmark than the existence of a God. You clearly cannot accept the evidence that Denmark is indeed NOT secular, proving there is no amount of evidence of there being a God that you will accept.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. - Luke 16:31

jesusbuttfuckingchristdancingonasaltinecracker, I can't call bull shit enough. I'm running out of ink here people!

I have a friend who moved from America to Denmark (his wife is a Dane) BECAUSE Danes are so predominately atheistic. I assure you, compared to the US, that country is full of heathens .... beautiful, wonderful, enlightened non-believers.

(March 10, 2015 at 9:59 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 9:57 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I proposed three scenarios.
1. The universe created itself.
2. The universe was created by an intelligent being.
3. The universe has always existed.

Good lord Huggy, the fact that you think those 3 scenarios encapsulate the question of how/if the universe began just demonstrates the futility of discussion with you.

Do you have something to add?

---

(March 10, 2015 at 10:03 am)Cinjin Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 9:57 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The question of whether of not Denmark Has a secular government is very easy to answer. Either separation of church and state exists or it doesn't.
You hypocrites whine about 10 commandments being displayed on government property, yet consider people being automatically made a member of the Church of Denmark, without their consent, secular. Not to mention a portion of peoples tax dollars go to the church, regardless of religion. yet you still consider it secular.

If this same scenario was to be introduced in America, you atheists would pitch a fit, but in the case of Denmark, it's secularism.
Who's being dishonest?

I gave you your own definitions on what secularism is and Denmark clearly doesn't meet those standards, yet it's still secular.
Who's being dishonest?

Just face the facts, it's would be far easier to convince you of the non-secularism of Denmark than the existence of a God. You clearly cannot accept the evidence that Denmark is indeed NOT secular, proving there is no amount of evidence of there being a God that you will accept.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. - Luke 16:31

jesusbuttfuckingchristdancingonasaltinecracker, I can't call bull shit enough. I'm running out of ink here people!


I have a friend who moved from America to Denmark (his wife is a Dane) BECAUSE Danes are so predominately atheistic. I assure you, compared to the US, that country is full of heathens .... beautiful, wonderful, enlightened non-believers.

Are you saying Denmark's government is secular? that all I want to know?

(March 10, 2015 at 10:04 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 9:59 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Good lord Huggy, the fact that you think those 3 scenarios encapsulate the question of how/if the universe began just demonstrates the futility of discussion with you.

Do you have something to add?

Your starting point is so bizarrely and hopelessly flawed that even the discussion about it is useless. Anything anyone here says will just drift past you without a mote of consideration from you. You just can't be wrong.

(March 10, 2015 at 10:04 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Are you saying Denmark's government is secular? that all I want to know?

You are a special kind of deceiver aren't you. A government is not one thing or the other. Not every politician in America believes in your phony god. Likewise, not every politician in Denmark is an atheist. Nowhere does it say in the US constitution that our government is Christian, and yet we often usher Jehovah into our political, educational and social arenas touting god and government all the way. To universally say that any government is or is not religious is erroneous and exceptionally dishonest on your part. Does religion exist in Denmark? Of course it does - and that means it exists in some small part in their government as well. That doesn't mean that Denmark is not predominately atheistic across the board - BECAUSE IT IS!

You are twisting and contorting information to make an argument you do not have. You're a real piece of work. The word liar comes to mind.

(March 10, 2015 at 10:05 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 10:04 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Do you have something to add?

Your starting point is so bizarrely and hopelessly flawed that even the discussion about it is useless. Anything anyone here says will just drift past you without a mote of consideration from you. You just can't be wrong.

So you've got nothing, understood.

By the way, it seems you never have anything to add to the discussion just useless remarks.

You've been a member less than 9 months with a month and a half spent on these forums, you really need a hobby....