(March 27, 2012 at 2:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Fantastic claims are made on both sides of the god issue. To what end we can only guess..lol.
(I'd also point out that "Chad's position" is one conveniently assumed by ommitting his denominations claims to attributes, again, sophistry, and I don't give a shit if he can tear someone's argument apart piece-meal, I want the whole fucking enchilada. His strategy is to make claims and then refuse to defend them -without further elaboration-, instead deferring attention by criticism of the claims of others. He isn't interested in positivism, he isn't interested in valid or sound arguments, he just likes making claims. We have our own little side discussion raging on which he refuses to even address, instead moving on to more fertile ground with each post. I'll be the one to mention that this is underhanded gaming of a system on his part each and every time he does it. This sort of argumentation is so tired and formulaic that I'd defend someone who claimed that peanut butter sandwiches were proof of the non-existence of god at this point.)
Again, in Chad's defense, he isn't required to provide any justifications within the context of this thread, because he hasn't made any claims. If I recall correctly, you yourself have often taken this position with regards to creationists, with words to effect "I believe nothing. Now convince me that your position is true". We have to hold ourselves up to the same standard of proof we hold the theists to. Which includes the rule that the person making the claim bears the burden of proof. And anyone else may level logical criticisms against it without having to defend or even indicate his own beliefs. I looked through Chad's posts on this thread and he hasn't made any claim - only questioned the claims made by OP.
Besides, regarding his own positions, I have found him reasonable enough to provide adequate justification or concede them, as the case may be. So I don't think that any accusation of underhandedness is warranted here.
