I was just asking, bro. Because if you said no, then we could all mark your entire argument as bullshit seeing as you don’t seem to come off like you know what you’re talking about. It would seem you evaded my question for that purpose alone. You are here trying to sell something to us after all. You are a Theist. You being the salesman has a shit argument about his product, that’s all.
Did you not read the Chomsky quote then? Did I say something about physics or science in general that you disagree with? if so what is it that I "don’t know what you’re talking about’? Something you know more about than me perhaps?
But you won’t answer my question about being or not being a scientist?
3 Likes
.
Again bizarre duplicity, just utterly bizarre. That’s a connection over just 2 posts and just two sentences, before in a third post @Sherlock-Holmes is pretending there is no connection between him making a claim and someone in the very next posts asking him about that claim.
Nope, but he keeps making the claim, citing himself as a sort of appeal to authority fallacy.
2 Likes
Why does that matter though, that’s the whole point of my objection to you. The insistence on being “qualified” is irrelevant - that’s what Chomsky explains. So I refuse to answer such questions, they are a distraction and in fact are intended to be so.
One way of discrediting what someone says when one cannot discredit the argument itself is to discredit the person making the argument, that’s often a softer target, that what ad hominem is.
It’s very common in atheist forums and debates a very common strategy.
The forum moderators obviously have a very different notion about what is uncivil than you do.
2 Likes
1 Like
Now we all know “how you get” when someone implies you’ve strayed from the truth, but that’s a whopper, a porky pie, a howler, your pants have completely burned away, they’ve gone nuclear…you sir lied, as right there. the assertion there are a host of good reasons to believe something, obviously implies it is probably correct, and you have offered nothing to support it, beyond an appeal to authority fallacy, and an argumentum ad populum fallacy, citing the subjective religious beliefs of “most biblical scholars” about claims for magic.
I think we all already know the answer, but do you consider your relentless lying to be civil discourse, in a public debate? How about asking someone who quotes a demountable lie you posted, if you can call them an imbecile, civil or uncivil?
1 Like
Yes, I noticed - 20 characters.
To be fair, Sherlock has a point.
Please be civil folks.
2 Likes
I agree, for example I think @Sherlock-Holmes demanding others answers him, and lying they’ve not answered, while dodging questions and rational arguments, and lying that he has answered them, is uncivil behaviour in a debate. I also think asking someone if it is ok to call them an imbecile is pretty uncivil.
Sauce for the goose etc…but yes I agree being civil will take one less thing for him to use as evasion.
2 Likes
Bumping this, as it says it all really.
1 Like
Bump all day, I’m done with you after the degree of personal attacks from you, it’s just ridiculous.
lol I love it when you play the victim. Remember, you came to us.
So exactly why did you come back to AR to have pissing match with a bunch of atheists? Is your faith in your god really that weak where you need atheists to verify what little beliefs you already have in your god?
1 Like
I’m discussing atheism and its shortcomings as a philosophical and rational position. If this is more like a church where dissent is not appreciated and obedience to the atheist doctrine is never to be questioned then rename the site to Atheist Temple.
Sorry but I always felt growing up that organized religions like Christianity and Islam were just fairy tale stories being lectured to be real. Plenty of short comings there too. Just anecdotal evidence and inadmissible and unproven fairy tale stories to brighten your day while they sing songs about your sky father at your local church.
Atheist doctrine? Wow. When did you pull that one out of your ass? Still hung up on your very own atheist definitions I see.
3 Likes
You’re not “discussing” anything, you’re peddling the usual tiresome blind assertions as if they constitute fact, and demanding that the rest of us genuflect before this discoursive inadequacy. No one here with functioning neurons is fooled by your masquerade, especially not those with knowledge of your track record here.
Bollocks. NOT treating unsupported mythological assertions uncritically as fact, is inherently rational. It’s the application of the proper rules of discourse to those assertions, a process that is manifestly alien to you.
Bollocks.
We don’t have a problem with competing ideas, provided that those ideas are presented honestly. What we do have a problem with, is egregious discoursive mendacity of the sort you’ve been displaying here ever since you arrived.
Again, bollocks.
Oh wait, whenever we challenge mythology fanboys like you to provide actual genuine examples of this so-called “atheist doctrine”, the mythology fanboys either run away, or peddle well-known and repeatedly destroyed lies on the subject.
Does presenting a spectacle of yourself before a global public audience, as being sleazy and underhand, give you some sort of perverse erotic thrill?
2 Likes
I’m always impressed with the cult like use of the collective “we” I see used by atheists in these kinds of forums, as if the atheist fulfills the same role as the priestly class did in days gone by, the elite arbiters of truth, the experts we can trust, the supreme council of truth!
Not as big a thrill as your abusive armchair ad-hominem gives to you.