To seek or to argue?

Originally posted by Agerg
See, the thing is, theists (in particular the fundies) and atheists are playing two entirely different games.
- The theist typically asserts some proposition A which is inconsistent with the physical laws which govern the universe we exist in.
- Atheist comes along and puts down a detailed argument B demonstrating that A is untenable.
- The theist then res ...[text shortened]... rtion C...

I am here only to argue (debate), and I get annoyed when theists play this game.

The theists you are talking about must be the JWs. But many of the JWs have had many years of indoctrination before them and the two on here fall into that category. So the best you are going to get is circular arguments. That is all they know how to do for they are too proud to admit they are wrong or that the Watchtower has given them wrong information. 😏

Originally posted by galveston75
I disagree. So I guess we are getting nowhere then.

Can't you see how disingenous your response is? You say that you "disagree", yet refuse to even attempt to give reasons for disagreeing with my post or even what parts you disagree with. And somehow it seems that you not only can't fathom why no one seems to respect you and your opinion, but you pretend like you are somehow being wronged because of it. It's ridiculously juvenile.

Originally posted by kd2acz
I am not sure what attitudes you are referring to and as for strong conviction in beliefs, well yes I do have them. But, I fail to see how that has anything to do with desiring people to think about how they communicate with one another and exercising a little decency. Granted, some people may like that, but I see some pretty offensive exchanges back and f Do you think the idea ' Do to others as you would have them do to you', built on sand?

-k

I am not sure what attitudes you are referring to and as for strong conviction in beliefs, well yes I do have them.

Within the context of the discussion, I'd have thought that it would have been clear that I was speaking of the following attitudes and there attendant implications:

This is what you posted earlier:

[quote]I think it's enough for parties to be "polite" with one another, and I think parties can bring what they want. We are all exposed to different things, have different education levels, different ideas and different set of morals. The goal is civility, sometimes that lacks in forums. IMO

In response to the following:

Do you think it's enough for all parties to be "polite" or do you think all parties also need to bring openness, honesty (including intellectual honesty), forthrightness, etc.? From what I can tell, the lack of the latter is usually what precipitates the lack of the former.

Based on the above, it seems you are of the opinion that so long as people are "polite" about it, everything else is okay. An implication of this is that if people are dishonest or otherwise deceitful; advocating treating women as second class citizens, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc.; and so on, it's okay so long as they're "polite". [/quote]

Do you think the idea ' Do to others as you would have them do to you', built on sand?

I was referring to the above. Those beliefs are built upon sand, since you are unwilling to take a hard look at them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hmmm, I probably could have phrased it better.


What I meant is this...

I value open minded enquiry.

Which entails being willing to change your mind if presented with evidence or reasons that justify doing so.

I also value skepticism which entails not believing things unless sufficient evidence is present to justify doing so.

What I oppos ...[text shortened]... this explanation you can agree that this position is not completely ridiculous ;-)

Okay. I think I understand. Though I must say that I would have never gotten that out of what you originally wrote.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Okay. I think I understand. Though I must say that I would have never gotten that out of what you originally wrote.

Yeah, I should probably spend more time on occasions explaining what I mean rather than assuming that everyone else is on the same wavelength.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/ke/illusion_of_transparency_why_no_one_understands/

http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well I doubt your going to listen to me any more than ThinkOfOne or FMF but I have to
tell you that I agree with everything ThinkOfOne has been telling you.

You and Robbie don't answer questions (that you don't like) you evade them and often insult the
person asking them and/or play the hurt victim.

I can't speak for anyone else but that's cert iling to address.

FMF comes across as dogged and very patient and polite.

You don't.

That's fine..... I know no matter what I say to him or how I answer him it will never end. So why should I continue any conversation with him? Perhaps you should review our past exchanges.

Originally posted by galveston75
That's fine..... I know no matter what I say to him or how I answer him it will never end. So why should I continue any conversation with him? Perhaps you should review our past exchanges.

That's not true.

If you actually answered his questions then it would end.

I can't tell if you genuinely think you are answering his questions but you are not, and that is
why he keeps asking them.

And what makes you think I haven't seen your 'past exchanges'?

I have a lot of respect for FMF and tend to watch his conversations even when I don't join in.


If nothing else, it seems to me that the point of having debates on these topics is not to 'convert'
everyone to your point of view, (although that can occasionally be a happy bi-product) but it is
to gain an understanding of people who think differently than you.

Given that there are evidently a number of us who view you as being highly evasive and think that
you dodge and dissemble every time you get asked a 'difficult' question.
Even if you don't agree that that is true, it might (should) be worth your while and a good endeavour
to try to discover why we think you are not answering our questions and to discover how we can
communicate without such misunderstandings.


If Your not prepared to do this then it just reinforces the appearance that you are doing this deliberately.

Originally posted by kd2acz
The two popular freq's around here are

2 Meter, 146.880 – (PL 110.9), K2RRA, Echolink K2RRA-R
2 Meter, 146.610 – (PL 110.9), N2MPE, Echolink N2MPE-R

There are others, but I listen on these and also use echolink. Do you have a smartphone? You could download the software or visit the site.

http://echolink.org/, pretty handy.

Also, club site.

http://www.rochesterhamfest.org

-k

I did the echolink download but ran into trouble setting up my router, echo wants access to port 5198 and 5199 and a program echolink recommended to figure out the router had a list of routers but mine wasn't in the list (Cisco WRTu54-TM) a T Mobile hotspot router that has a phone line so you can use the house phone as if it were a T mobile cell phone. I think I have to dig into the router to find out how to access those ports manually.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That's not true.

If you actually answered his questions then it would end.

I can't tell if you genuinely think you are answering his questions but you are not, and that is
why he keeps asking them.

And what makes you think I haven't seen your 'past exchanges'?

I have a lot of respect for FMF and tend to watch his conversations even when I d ...[text shortened]... do this then it just reinforces the appearance that you are doing this deliberately.

As I said that's fine. You guys either accept my answers are you don't. You don't and there is nothing else I can do to help you with this issue. Move on and be happy...

Originally posted by FMF
A believer could simply say "the sky is blue," and I expect you would question the poster's integrity and go on about the molecules in the atmosphere reflecting other colors as well, not to mention night time, etc. etc.

This is a clumsy straw man.[/b]

You have stated not once, not twice, but 3 separate times--each all the more emphatic than the last--that my statement is a "clumsy strawman." Being a deep-thinker and an intellectual, and making the effort to claim something 3 separate times---I think we should all assume that you are completely and entirely convinced. In fact, you have been so emphatic about your claim, that if you are wrong, it should indicate that you aren't the intellectual you seem to be.

And the irony is utterly supreme, considering how literally *clumsy* your accusation was. 🙂

I contend that my statement quoted above is 100% factual. You cannot possibly prove otherwise. Would you care to make a wager, kind sir? Name your terms. I will accept any amount. Everyone here is our witness. How about the loser leaves the forum permanently. Or, if money is your thing, that'll be fine.

Originally posted by Agerg
See, the thing is, theists (in particular the fundies) and atheists are playing two entirely different games.
- The theist typically asserts some proposition A which is inconsistent with the physical laws which govern the universe we exist in.
- Atheist comes along and puts down a detailed argument B demonstrating that A is untenable.
- The theist then res rtion C...

I am here only to argue (debate), and I get annoyed when theists play this game.

What the skeptics seemingly cannot or will not understand is, the Creator of this or any universe, is not bound by that creation's internal, physical, scientific laws.

What the skeptics seemingly cannot or will not allow themselves to do, is take a completely objective point of view, and imagine a being creating a universe, and then realizing the fallaciousness of trying to force-fit that universe's laws upon said creator-being, who obviously lives *outside* said universe.

The Theist simply takes the teachings of his/her God/god at face value. Because--using LOGIC--said God/god is obviously and completely unfettered and unbound by the laws within the universe it creates, said God/god can break or override any and all said laws and perform an infinite number of "miracles."

Agerg, it all boils down to a single point. Is there no Creator, or is there a Creator?

If there is no Creator, then the skeptics have a host of problems explaining the existence of all things, and science will *never* be able to answer that question (unless it finally gives in to the notion of an antecedent cause, a.k.a. a Creator). On the other hand if there IS a Creator, then all imaginable miracles are utterly and completely possible.

It doesn't have to be illogical or unscientific, for there to be a Creator that made everything that can do whatever He wants with the creation. As Theists, we see it as completely logical; as skeptics, you can't deny the fact that it IS logical--as long as a Creator exists.

All of these myriad, ceaseless arguments about things being impossible, are shattered completely, if a Creator exists.

So again, it all boils down one issue: whether or not a Creator made this universe. The rest is rendered pointless, as it's so easily explained by the answer to this issue.

Originally posted by sumydid
I contend that my statement quoted above is 100% factual.

I take it you reckon it's "100% factual" because you used the words "I expect". Your "point" about blue sky, integrity and molecules is, however, a straw man nevertheless. You can't show any posts of mine that are anything remotely like what you claim to "expect". You are simply trying to make a point about statements I make by creating one of your own and claiming that is what you "expect": a clumsy straw man if ever there was one.

Originally posted by FMF
I take it you reckon it's "100% factual" because you used the words "I expect". Your "point" about blue sky, integrity and molecules is, however, a straw man nevertheless. You can't show any posts of mine that are anything remotely like what you claim to "expect". You are simply trying to make a point about statements I make by creating one of your own and claiming that is what you "expect": a clumsy straw man if ever there was one.

Seems you both agree that the so called 'straw man' is nothing more or less than an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation
of an opponent's position. What's unclear is your actual positions. Maybe summary statements of your points of view are in order.
.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Seems you both agree that the so called 'straw man' is nothing more or less than an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation
of an opponent's position. What's unclear is your actual positions. Maybe summary statements of your points of view are in order.
.

I suggest you read our contributions to various threads if your curiosity is genuine.

Originally posted by FMF
I suggest you read our contributions to various threads if your curiosity is genuine.

Summarize, please. Whatever you're struggling to say is lost in the verbosity and friction of the conversational shuffel.