Atheists

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
...Romans get a hold of him.

I thought it was the other way around? After all, all the temples in Rome were later converted to churches and the Vatican set up shop smack dab in the middle of the city. LOL.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
not quite. i would question your claim that you have pink unicorns in your fridge.

for a reasoning to be valid it must first make sure the information, the facts it works with are also valid. one cannot reach valid results starting with false facts or facts whose validity is unknown so then who cares if the logical processes involved in deducing knowledg ...[text shortened]... do not allow anyone to question the facts from which you started, how can anyone disprove you?

There is a difference between reasoning and being right. Reasoning is simply using the initial 'facts' to make conclusions. Reasoning is right or wrong not based on whether the facts are right or wrong but based on whether the reasoning was done correctly. The reasoning can be right even if the conclusion is wrong due to wrong initial facts.
As far as I can tell Robbie was saying that we all have different facts available to us and thus even if our reasoning is sound we may come to different conclusions.

I fully agree that the initial facts should be questioned and discussed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is a difference between reasoning and being right. Reasoning is simply using the initial 'facts' to make conclusions. Reasoning is right or wrong not based on whether the facts are right or wrong but based on whether the reasoning was done correctly. The reasoning can be right even if the conclusion is wrong due to wrong initial facts.
As far as I ...[text shortened]... erent conclusions.

I fully agree that the initial facts should be questioned and discussed.

Actually all i was simply saying was that we make an evaluation of the information that we have before us, for example, the evolutionary hypothesis states that fish, (we shall start with fish for simplicity sake), became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles became birds, birds became mammals etc etc etc. a migration of one species to another, now based on your knowledge of evolution you might view this as a plausible and viable explanation for the diversity of life and that is fine if thats all you have to go by, however someone else may look at the same initial ideas and based on their reasoning and knowledge come to an entirely different conclusion, for example how is it possible that scales could become feathers, or why is it that reptiles are cold bloodied and birds warm bloodied, why does the fossil record show entire species appearing without precedent as in the case of vertebrates, (these examples are provided for reference only, lets not start that all over again), wait a minute there are some serious inconsistencies here that need resolving before i can accept this idea. thus the process of evaluation begins with the powers of reason based on our knowledge. the problems facing individuals has to do with objectivity and pre conception and to a certain degree conditioning of the mind, this can be evident in both theists and atheists, although neither would dare admit it!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually all i was simply saying was that we make an evaluation of the information that we have before us, for example, the evolutionary hypothesis states that fish, (we shall start with fish for simplicity sake), became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles became birds, birds became mammals etc etc etc. a migration of one species to another, no ...[text shortened]... he mind, this can be evident in both theists and atheists, although neither would dare admit it!

again, wouldn't it be grand if first you knew what you were talking about before you chose to speak?

cold blooded reptiles into warm blooded birds? where'd you get that?

the latest data indicate that many of what we have up to now called dinosaurs were not reptiles and were not, or not all, cold blooded. Rather, even T Rex may have already had both scaly skin AND feathers or feather-like filaments.

The modern creature with the most DNA similarities to the T Rex is the chicken.

if you had ever examined close up the hip and "knee" joints of the T Rex and compared them to, say, the Komodo Dragon, a lizard, and then to a large bird -- like an Ostrich, you might get what I mean.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the term "ad-hominum" has other usages. Ad-hominem (this is how it is spelled for your future reference, not being a grammar nazi just saying) arguments are used to describe practices when one debater attacks the other debater rather than his arguments.

i wasn't performing an ad-hominem because there was no debating. what i did is called "insulting". i ...[text shortened]... ve muslim warrior and i am a capitalist coward pig infidel who will never get 72 virgins.

Evolution does not necessarily counter religion. As he said, Darwin himself was religious. Most evolutionary scientists who accept the truth about evolution (that it exists) are religious. In fact, during the Dover trials, many scientists in the community were called atheist by the conservative population, and they hated it!

And just insulting somebody doesn't get you anywhere, however good it makes you feel. Capitalist pig.

Originally posted by Scriabin
again, wouldn't it be grand if first you knew what you were talking about before you chose to speak?

cold blooded reptiles into warm blooded birds? where'd you get that?

the latest data indicate that many of what we have up to now called dinosaurs were not reptiles and were not, or not all, cold blooded. Rather, even T Rex may have already had both s do Dragon, a lizard, and then to a large bird -- like an Ostrich, you might get what I mean.

wouldn't it be nice if, before posting your comments, you took the time to reflect and think about what was the intent of the comment, for if you did so, you would realize that i was making a very general statement, with the sole intention of avoiding a discussion on the intricacies of the actual evolutionary hypothesis simply to illustrate how one may come to a different understanding based on the knowledge at ones disposal. i mean, did i not make it plain enough? will i put it in italics, all in capitals, assign it a paragraph of its own in parenthesis? would that help?

Originally posted by Scriabin
again, wouldn't it be grand if first you knew what you were talking about before you chose to speak?

cold blooded reptiles into warm blooded birds? where'd you get that?

the latest data indicate that many of what we have up to now called dinosaurs were not reptiles and were not, or not all, cold blooded. Rather, even T Rex may have already had both s ...[text shortened]... do Dragon, a lizard, and then to a large bird -- like an Ostrich, you might get what I mean.

if you had ever examined close up the hip and "knee" joints of the T Rex and compared them to, say, the Komodo Dragon, a lizard, and then to a large bird -- like an Ostrich, you might get what I mean.

😴

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wouldn't it be nice if, before posting your comments, you took the time to reflect and think about what was the intent of the comment, for if you did so, you would realize that i was making a very general statement, with the sole intention of avoiding a discussion on the intricacies of the actual evolutionary hypothesis simply to illustrate how one m ...[text shortened]... in italics, all in capitals, assign it a paragraph of its on in parenthesis? would that help?

His purpose in this site is to condescend and make attacks without any reason. Don't take it personally. He does it to everyone. He's a US politician.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is a difference between reasoning and being right. Reasoning is simply using the initial 'facts' to make conclusions. Reasoning is right or wrong not based on whether the facts are right or wrong but based on whether the reasoning was done correctly. The reasoning can be right even if the conclusion is wrong due to wrong initial facts.
As far as I ...[text shortened]... erent conclusions.

I fully agree that the initial facts should be questioned and discussed.

then we are talking about the definition of reasoning. i would like to submit the idea that reasoning has a purpose, to enrich our knowledge. as such, any reasoning based on false facts or facts unknown to be true or false is pointless as it won't enrich nothing. as such why call the practice of making theories starting from false facts "reasoning"?

my idea is that reasoning should only be called the practice of drawing conclusions from facts that you are fairly certain are true. and then verify the result. and then verify the starting facts. and verify the process. once can never be sure of how incomplete their knowledge is but we can at least be as sure as we can.

"As far as I can tell Robbie was saying that we all have different facts available to us and thus even if our reasoning is sound we may come to different conclusions."
you are too kind. i doubt this is what robbie had in mind. after all, even if we use your definition of valid reasoning, when did he do any reasoning at all. he just took his "facts" and formed the conclusion. and when we pointed out flaws in just about every aspect of his logic, from premise to conclusion, he laughed at us and yelled we have nothing but air to present.

Originally posted by scherzo
Evolution does not necessarily counter religion. As he said, Darwin himself was religious. Most evolutionary scientists who accept the truth about evolution (that it exists) are religious. In fact, during the Dover trials, many scientists in the community were called atheist by the conservative population, and they hated it!

And just insulting somebody doesn't get you anywhere, however good it makes you feel. Capitalist pig.

tell that to the robbie.

"And just insulting somebody doesn't get you anywhere"
i have given up trying to get anywhere, with either the abnoxious one or the brave muslim warrior. as such i will insult from time to time. just for lulz. ad of course staying on the topic at hand.

with individuals like you two, one is always provided with new material to insult

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you had ever examined close up the hip and "knee" joints of the T Rex and compared them to, say, the Komodo Dragon, a lizard, and then to a large bird -- like an Ostrich, you might get what I mean.

😴

you are a model, an inspiration to debaters worldwide. all philosophers bow to you and call you master. we are truly honored to have you here, to marvel at awesome remarks like "😴" this one shall go down in history. what a burn! scriabin will run away in shame, screaming like a little girl because of your extraordinary wit and knowledge.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
tell that to the robbie.

"And just insulting somebody doesn't get you anywhere"
i have given up trying to get anywhere, with either the abnoxious one or the brave muslim warrior. as such i will insult from time to time. just for lulz. ad of course staying on the topic at hand.

with individuals like you two, one is always provided with new material to insult

Robbie has more sense than you. I may disagree with him on some points, but at least he knows how to debate, as opposed to your personal attacks or Scriabin's condescending attitude.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What will you be doing on National Christian Day? Or don't you have one?

National Christian would probably have to be National Day of Prayer.

Originally posted by scherzo
Robbie has more sense than you. I may disagree with him on some points, but at least he knows how to debate, as opposed to your personal attacks or Scriabin's condescending attitude.

thankyou for defending me my friend, i have repeatedly overlooked and dismissed the condescension and lack of civility, continually pointed out that its manners that makes the man and that to be a worthwhile human being one needs more than knowledge, one needs empathy and a certain egalitarian sensibility, but it is water on a stone. so be it, let them resort to insult for it is more an indictment against their own personas and a reflection of ineptness at knowing how to treat others with dignity and respect. Perhaps one day they will learn - regards Robbie.

Originally posted by scherzo
Robbie has more sense than you. I may disagree with him on some points, but at least he knows how to debate, as opposed to your personal attacks or Scriabin's condescending attitude.

then you wouldn't mind if i copy him like the capitalist pig i am


😴