I thought this was a conversation as opposed to a contest.
If that makes me a loser so be it.
Now what’s your prize for having “won”?
I answered this question as best I could.
That you found my answer unsatisfactory tends to confirm my beliefs about explanations.
Again then, this is a debate forum, though of course those are not mutually exclusive, nor does a discussion rule out you having the courtesy to address criticisms of your claims of course.
That’s not what he said though?
This is not a formal debate of course, but if someone makes sweeping claims they aren’t prepared to evidence or defend, then one can draw a pretty obvious inference.
You responded, you didn’t even pretend to answer, and what’s with clipping the quotes so all context is lost?
Sorry, what am i thinking, another question…
Nope, but then you seem to think your beliefs are beyond critical scrutiny.
Although there is a mechanism here for flagging posts, I typically catch trolling without initiation of that mechanism.
BTW, I see no evidence that you are trolling, therefore, your account is active. 
As a side question, what constitutes “classier”?
It’s no longer a conversation when you cannot provide evidence that you’re correct in your arguments. It becomes a circular argument that goes on and on until it is an Ad Nauseam with the same results for the person presenting the argument.
Normally in a court of law when someone cannot present objective evidence to the judge & jury for their claims, they lose their case. If the defendant cannot prove they’re innocent, they end up with a sentence with (x) amounts of years. Even they still argue that they are innocent even when the evidence incriminating them strongly says otherwise
I agree.
You are being woeful discourteous in badgering me for a response when I insist I’ve done my best.
Assume or infer what you like, as if you haven’t already made up your mind having made your various accusations.
IMO, a classier website wouldn’t allow this treatment of a guest.
As to what normally happens in court, this is of no interest to me until such time as I’ve been duly served with notice that a suit has been filed.
Well, I don’t think you’re being treated in any negative way. One guest disagreeing with another guest, or asking them for backup on what they’ve written is reasonable. No one has violated the forum guidelines (no threats of violence, no bigotry, etc) by doing so.
So I suppose it’s my fault that this is a classless place. I have been called way worse than classless in my day, though.
An actual photo of last year’s AR holiday party, @NY_G_PA2. The theme was “Another shot at high class” and, well, you can see the result. Hopeless.
That’s @CyberLN in the red slippers berating me for wearing the purple that doesn’t match anything else there at all.
When you head back to one of them more sophisticated forums, be a dear and bring back some hors d’oeuvres. It’s been so long since we had something with olive tampenade.
Dammit @Bluedoc ! You promised not to publish that picture!
But thank you for never wearing purple again.
People are afforded respect, but beliefs claims and ideas must earn it, based on their own merit. You have not been disrespected, only the nonsensical and unevidenced claims you have made.
FYI clipping quotes to remove all intended context from my posts, is definitely not courteous behaviour.
On the contrary, in a public debate forum evasion and dishonesty is what is discourteous, and even repeating claims and arguments, while ignoring refutations and objections.
I have made no assumptions, and my decision about whether a claim belief or idea has merit, is always based on the facts, and post content, what’s more there is no idea or belief I would not abandon if sufficient objective evidence demonstrated it was false. So this is just more deflection, and projection from you, ironically.
You think a debate forum would be “classier” if it indulged poor reasoning, and unevidenced claims? I can only strongly disagree.
I made no mention of court?
As for you doing your best, you seem yet again to have evaded answering even a single question, or objection to any of your previous claims, any thoughts on how that might be perceived?
What happens on the AR holiday party, stays on the AR holiday party…
Ahem!
You’re either missing the point or you’re evading the point. When someone makes a claim, they still have a burden of proof that they have to meet when making claims of any kind.
Just to recap, the word atheist in the title strikes me as projection, and suggests a more salient question is, why do theists deny objective scientific facts. Though of course we probably know the answer to this, as the hostility towards science is undoubtedly because the method has increased our knowledge of reality exponentially, whilst not evidencing any deity at all, and of course has roundly refuted religious ideas that were lauded as immutably true.
It’s not just atheists who rely heavily on science, but the entire world.
That’s because science is the best system we have to understand the world around us and develop the answers to the every-day challenges we face, just think about it: without science i wouldn’t have the computer i am using to answer this question or the internet connection required to send this post, without science i wouldn’t even have an house or an education to write in english in this moment.
Every single advancement of the human race was achieved thanks to science and to throw it away means to throw away the future, just imagine if we blindly believed everything we heard without questioning it with the scientific method.
Exactly, if you think about it, if we don’t rely on science for answers and solutions to everyday problems, and instead use spiritual practices as a way to solve them, it will inevitably lead to a dark age like in the 6th to 16th centuries. Do you want when you have internal diseases such as kidney failure are prayed all day long for like in those days?
Just one.
My perception is that you’re intent on reaffirming my belief in the old adage that explanations are always a waste of time as one’s friends don’t need them while one’s enemies never understand.
So if you, or any of the handful of people who read any of this, perceive my reticence to engage in what I consider a useless exercise as deflection, dishonesty, projection, etc., that’s not my concern.
Oooppps.
That’s two “takes”.
So you can call me a liar again, as is your wont, if you have any objective evidence to suggest that argumentation, contradiction and insults will somehow magically improve or change my POV.
Since I was born, humanity has stood at the edge of an abyss and the possibility of a New Dark Age.
Science, or more specifically scientism-the dogmatic belief that science will one day provide answers to all our problems-has brought us to this promenade.
But it is not what has prevented us from jumping off, into the chasm.
From what I’ve seen, only spirituality, and a refusal to accept the inhumane, scientific assumption that there is no intrinsic value to the existence of any particular person or “thing”, can provide us with a reason not to make that suicidal leap along with all the other proverbial lemmings!
You seem determined to dishonestly misrepresent what I have asked, and respond with dishonesty and evasion.
Persecution complex, no one is your enemy, this is a public debate forum, and your ideas are disjointed, sweeping unevidenced and often poorly reasoned. Inevitably when you make claims here, people will request you support them with sufficient objective evidence, you seem to just want to roll past that onto the next raft of claims, like you’re preaching.
Whoever said it was, it’s been clear from the first you want to make sweeping poorly reasoned claims, then ignore critical responses, if you perceived what this meant, and were concerned by that, pointing this out would be redundant. Your comments on atheism and science were / are, erroneous nonsense for example.
Straw man fallacy, no one claimed it would. Closed minded people rarely want to critically examine their beliefs and ideas.
Which has what to do with his point, that the alternative to gaining knowledge is to remain ignorant? You seem keen to avoid this simple fact, and repeat your original claim.
Another sweeping claim, and if anyone perceives science in that way, this is their error, not a flaw in the methods of science, more projection.
Again you are making the same error of projecting intent into a methodology, humans have intent, science does not.
Being humane does not require superstition, that is axiomatic. You are flirting with a no true Scotsman fallacy here.
This is the same lie you offered earlier, it remains a straw man fallacy. This is what was meant when I said your closed minded ideas and beliefs are poorly reasoned, since you are erroneously projecting a belief you hold onto science. Science remains simply a method for studying the natural physical world and universe, and gaining a better understanding of how it works.
I’d ask you to offer something beyond a bare claim, but I think we both know by know that’s a waste of time, as you have nothing else, thus this claim is worthless, you might as well be peddling snake oil as a cure all.
Dogmatic? That implies that science doesn’t provide answers to gnawing questions - and it in fact does so - in abundance.
That’s the thing! Science has consistently made life better. That’s hardly dogmatic. It’s evidence that there’s something right about the scientific method.
Is it perfect? Hardly.
Does it change over time? Of course it does. That’s its nature.
Is it sometimes wrong? Of course it is. That’s also its nature. It’s just that it is self-correcting.
Is it incompatible with religion? I think it is, but others disagree with that.
Now if you define “scientism as the dogmatic …”, I know of no one who is dogmatic about science. I think people who think that there are people who are dogmatic about science are trying to equate science with religion - and, in my opinion, that just a bunch of projection.
I don’t see where these assertions come from.
Evolution and paleobiology tell us that extinction is the rule . . . not the exception, as more than 99.9% of all species that have ever lived have become extinct.
In my mind, this means that human life should be cherished and nurtured all the more . . . as we may become extinct ourselves.
Also, science has given us vaccines (among many other things) that preserve human life, add to our lifespan, and have drastically reduced human suffering.
When we consider this point, how has science not been life-affirming? How has science declared that a person has no intrinsic value?
If anything, science has added value to the individual human by reducing misery and suffering, by opening up vast learning opportunities (the Internet is an example), and by giving humans more choices.
Where does this assumption that science is inhumane and/or robs people of value come from?
Why is it insufficient to assume that survival and flourishing are meaningful just for their own sake?
It’s a belief I’ve only ever heard expressed by disgruntled religious apologists, with an axe to grind against science, based on straw men they’ve created about science.
I imagine you’re familiar with the kind of selection bias closed minded apologetics uses, this is a good example of that.
Since superstitions provide no empirical data, they don’t really trouble science, in much the same way unicorns and mermaids are not often cited for research grants.
Now that’s is some good darts right there, by Jove…nailed it cleanly.
Exactly so, no superstition is required for that. Yet so often we get lectured by the superstitious on the value of human life, often when they are gleefully eyeing up the vast majority for an eternity of torture as well.
Ironic really…
