Don't get me wrong. You're entitled to believe what you want and to express it, but this is a discussion forum, and if your position is "I have my beliefs, evidence be damned," that's not a discussion. That's trolling. And you've made it clear on THIS thread, that's what you're doing. As a participant in this thread (not as a moderator), I'm saying it's not welcome.
I never said you'll get spiked. And what you perceive to be the trith is objectively false. It's made up b.s. But you can't see that because you declare it to be true, evidence be damned. That's not discussion. That's trolling. And I can't imagine a more vivid example of it.
No one needs to spike your comments. I'd much rather keep them on display so everyone can see the bowl sheet I have to put up with in arguing my position against your wishful thinking.
if your position is "I have my beliefs, evidence be damned," that's not a discussion. That's trolling. And you've made it clear on THIS thread, that's what you're doing.
I didn't say the evidence was damned, I said it was either incomplete or faulty. But I guess you can't see the difference.
Nor is it "wishful thinking" on my part (even if you can't see or think of it as anything but that.)
But thanks for not spiking it. Certain other readers might see it differently.
It's neither incomplete nor faulty. You have not even ATTEMPTED to make a case that it is incomplete or faulty. The evidence refutes your false position, so you reject the evidence. That is "evidence be damned," whether you choose to phrase it that way or not.
Don't get me wrong. You're entitled to believe what you want and to express it, but this is a discussion forum, and if your position is "I have my beliefs, evidence be damned," that's not a discussion. That's trolling. And you've made it clear on THIS thread, that's what you're doing. As a participant in this thread (not as a moderator), I'm saying it's not welcome.
As a moderator, I can say it violates no rules.
At a certain point, there will be an impasse at the ability to discuss matters that involve faith.
This is just logic. Why? Because the major premise in each case is at exact odds - polar opposites.
Thus the logic sequence that is produced will similarly be at polar opposite odds. So Raf, I would postulate that there is no trolling at all going on in this thread.
I disagree, Chockfull. As a participant, not as a moderator. Certain posters are attempting to deflect the discussion instead of contribute to it, and I consider that trolling.
It's neither incomplete nor faulty. You have not even ATTEMPTED to make a case that it is incomplete or faulty. The evidence refutes your false position, so you reject the evidence. That is "evidence be damned," whether you choose to phrase it that way or not.
May I suggest that some participants in this thread (esp. TLC) could benefit tremendously from this MOOC on the subject of understanding arguments.
Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning is important. This series of four short courses will teach you how to do it well. You will learn simple but vital rules to follow in thinking about any topic at all and common and tempting mistakes to avoid in reasoning. We will discuss how to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments by other people (including politicians, used car salesmen, and teachers) and how to construct arguments of your own in order to help you decide what to believe or what to do. These skills will be useful in dealing with whatever matters most to you. [...]
Course 1 - Think Again I: How to Understand Arguments
Course 2 - Think Again II: How to Reason Deductively
Course 3 - Think Again III: How to Reason Inductively
Course 4 - Think Again IV: How to Avoid Fallacies
Coursera doesn't charge for the courses unless you want an official certificate that you can use for job seeking.
Just over two years ago (Feb 28, - March 2, 2015), I witnessed some big time arguing -- my first time sitting in on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Washington. It was a thrill. On Feb 28, I toured the Newseum. The relevant point for this thread is that while there, I purchased Jay Heinrichs' book, "Thank You for Arguing." I recommend it to readers and participants of this discussion on atheism.
The author's collaborators started a website where resources and space for practicing/honing one's rhetorical (argument) skills. arguelab.com.
The available resources for readers, writers and speakers to make sound, valid arguments are vast. The help the ones who wish to clearly express themselves to do so with decreasing frustration. And they can substantially reduce tension in discussions.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of Atheist FAQ.
And may all participants grow in their knowledge and personal communication skills.
At a certain point, there will be an impasse at the ability to discuss matters that involve faith.
This is just logic. Why? Because the major premise in each case is at exact odds - polar opposites.
Thus the logic sequence that is produced will similarly be at polar opposite odds. So Raf, I would postulate that there is no trolling at all going on in this thread.
Right. A different premise can, with no break in logic, result in a different perception of what is real and true.
Thank you for recognizing and acknowledging the coherency and consistency of my previously stated thought, chockfull.
Disagreeing with the premise that my name begins with the letter R results in wrong conclusions. I don't see how you can disagree with the premise that my name begins with R. But if that's what you choose to do, I'm not going to stop you. However, if you expect me to somehow agree to disagree on whether my name begins with R, and allow your conclusions to carry equal weight with my conclusions, then no. My conclusions are based on the fact that my name begins with R, and your conclusions are wrong. If you insist on maintaining that position, FINE. I have no reason to argue with it. But ok.
Now, you come along and say my name doesn't begin with R, and that it's small minded of me to fail to see things your way, and I'm just going to give you funny looks and tell you your premise is nonsense. Because my name starts with R. There's really no debate about it, and your false premise does not carry the same weight as my premise, which is supported by the evidence.
TBone, the Disney Cruise was the best, wasn't it? I enjoyed the bejezus out of my family's!
Yeah, Raf - our family would definitely do that again....I enjoy reading your posts – always exemplary of critical thinking skills in action and imho you have a long suit in honesty – needless to say I’m a big fan – I have that book Thank You for Arguing that Rocky mentioned – great stuff to review occasionally.... Sorry about my attempt at levity on this thread – just couldn’t resist a good set up.
Seems to me that atheists & agnostics need more tangible evidence for the existence of a Creator. There are some good creation science information on the internet these days. For those who have questioned the existence of a Creator i suggest that you check out this video:
The most interesting part of the video is approx 16:00 minutes in where a scientist contemplates: "how did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software?". Hopefully this evidence helps. I understand where you are coming from.
Disagreeing with the premise that my name begins with the letter R results in wrong conclusions. I don't see how you can disagree with the premise that my name begins with R. But if that's what you choose to do, I'm not going to stop you. However, if you expect me to somehow agree to disagree on whether my name begins with R, and allow your conclusions to carry equal weight with my conclusions, then no. My conclusions are based on the fact that my name begins with R, and your conclusions are wrong. If you insist on maintaining that position, FINE. I have no reason to argue with it. But ok.
Now, you come along and say my name doesn't begin with R, and that it's small minded of me to fail to see things your way, and I'm just going to give you funny looks and tell you your premise is nonsense. Because my name starts with R. There's really no debate about it, and your false premise does not carry the same weight as my premise, which is supported by the evidence.
You do realize, however, that all of this is predicated upon you actually existing and not being an artificial intelligence bot on the internet.
I'll suspend your account for a week. That should do the trick. :)
All that would prove is that we are closer than we thought to the Turing test than we thought. And that Elon Musk isn't as paranoid as we thought. And, if it was just a week, I might not even notice depending on the timing.
You see, I have absolutely no obligation to correct people who are wrong on the internet.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
53
16
24
21
Popular Days
Mar 14
16
Mar 29
16
Mar 16
14
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 53 posts
waysider 16 posts
Bolshevik 24 posts
TLC 21 posts
Popular Days
Mar 14 2017
16 posts
Mar 29 2016
16 posts
Mar 16 2017
14 posts
Mar 17 2017
14 posts
Popular Posts
Rocky
Just over two years ago (Feb 28, - March 2, 2015), I witnessed some big time arguing -- my first time sitting in on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Washington. It was a thrill. On Feb 28, I tou
Rocky
May I suggest that some participants in this thread (esp. TLC) could benefit tremendously from this MOOC on the subject of understanding arguments. Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning
Raf
Don't get me wrong. You're entitled to believe what you want and to express it, but this is a discussion forum, and if your position is "I have my beliefs, evidence be damned," that's not a discussion. That's trolling. And you've made it clear on THIS thread, that's what you're doing. As a participant in this thread (not as a moderator), I'm saying it's not welcome.
As a moderator, I can say it violates no rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I never said you'll get spiked. And what you perceive to be the trith is objectively false. It's made up b.s. But you can't see that because you declare it to be true, evidence be damned. That's not discussion. That's trolling. And I can't imagine a more vivid example of it.
No one needs to spike your comments. I'd much rather keep them on display so everyone can see the bowl sheet I have to put up with in arguing my position against your wishful thinking.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I didn't say the evidence was damned, I said it was either incomplete or faulty. But I guess you can't see the difference.
Nor is it "wishful thinking" on my part (even if you can't see or think of it as anything but that.)
But thanks for not spiking it. Certain other readers might see it differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's neither incomplete nor faulty. You have not even ATTEMPTED to make a case that it is incomplete or faulty. The evidence refutes your false position, so you reject the evidence. That is "evidence be damned," whether you choose to phrase it that way or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
At a certain point, there will be an impasse at the ability to discuss matters that involve faith.
This is just logic. Why? Because the major premise in each case is at exact odds - polar opposites.
Thus the logic sequence that is produced will similarly be at polar opposite odds. So Raf, I would postulate that there is no trolling at all going on in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I disagree, Chockfull. As a participant, not as a moderator. Certain posters are attempting to deflect the discussion instead of contribute to it, and I consider that trolling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
May I suggest that some participants in this thread (esp. TLC) could benefit tremendously from this MOOC on the subject of understanding arguments.
Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning is important. This series of four short courses will teach you how to do it well. You will learn simple but vital rules to follow in thinking about any topic at all and common and tempting mistakes to avoid in reasoning. We will discuss how to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments by other people (including politicians, used car salesmen, and teachers) and how to construct arguments of your own in order to help you decide what to believe or what to do. These skills will be useful in dealing with whatever matters most to you. [...]
Course 1 - Think Again I: How to Understand Arguments
Course 2 - Think Again II: How to Reason Deductively
Course 3 - Think Again III: How to Reason Inductively
Course 4 - Think Again IV: How to Avoid Fallacies
Coursera doesn't charge for the courses unless you want an official certificate that you can use for job seeking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Just over two years ago (Feb 28, - March 2, 2015), I witnessed some big time arguing -- my first time sitting in on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Washington. It was a thrill. On Feb 28, I toured the Newseum. The relevant point for this thread is that while there, I purchased Jay Heinrichs' book, "Thank You for Arguing." I recommend it to readers and participants of this discussion on atheism.
The author's collaborators started a website where resources and space for practicing/honing one's rhetorical (argument) skills. arguelab.com.
The available resources for readers, writers and speakers to make sound, valid arguments are vast. The help the ones who wish to clearly express themselves to do so with decreasing frustration. And they can substantially reduce tension in discussions.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of Atheist FAQ.
And may all participants grow in their knowledge and personal communication skills.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Awesome, let's start with basics:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
you know...the only bad thing I remember about our Disney cruise was leaving my floating footwear at Castaway Cay Island.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Right. A different premise can, with no break in logic, result in a different perception of what is real and true.
Thank you for recognizing and acknowledging the coherency and consistency of my previously stated thought, chockfull.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When Morgan Freeman answers your letter, how you interpret it is what matters most.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TBone, the Disney Cruise was the best, wasn't it? I enjoyed the bejezus out of my family's!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My name begins with the letter R.
Disagreeing with the premise that my name begins with the letter R results in wrong conclusions. I don't see how you can disagree with the premise that my name begins with R. But if that's what you choose to do, I'm not going to stop you. However, if you expect me to somehow agree to disagree on whether my name begins with R, and allow your conclusions to carry equal weight with my conclusions, then no. My conclusions are based on the fact that my name begins with R, and your conclusions are wrong. If you insist on maintaining that position, FINE. I have no reason to argue with it. But ok.
Now, you come along and say my name doesn't begin with R, and that it's small minded of me to fail to see things your way, and I'm just going to give you funny looks and tell you your premise is nonsense. Because my name starts with R. There's really no debate about it, and your false premise does not carry the same weight as my premise, which is supported by the evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah, Raf - our family would definitely do that again....I enjoy reading your posts – always exemplary of critical thinking skills in action and imho you have a long suit in honesty – needless to say I’m a big fan – I have that book Thank You for Arguing that Rocky mentioned – great stuff to review occasionally.... Sorry about my attempt at levity on this thread – just couldn’t resist a good set up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
Seems to me that atheists & agnostics need more tangible evidence for the existence of a Creator. There are some good creation science information on the internet these days. For those who have questioned the existence of a Creator i suggest that you check out this video:
The most interesting part of the video is approx 16:00 minutes in where a scientist contemplates: "how did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software?". Hopefully this evidence helps. I understand where you are coming from.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Because atoms are not stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
You do realize, however, that all of this is predicated upon you actually existing and not being an artificial intelligence bot on the internet.
Do we have supporting evidence of that yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll suspend your account for a week. That should do the trick. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I noticed a new post on this thread and have read only this page (so far) and am wondering if it belongs in the GC Humor forum ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I just looked at the whole thread. Now I'm sure it belongs in GSC Humor.
Have fun, guys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
All that would prove is that we are closer than we thought to the Turing test than we thought. And that Elon Musk isn't as paranoid as we thought. And, if it was just a week, I might not even notice depending on the timing.
You see, I have absolutely no obligation to correct people who are wrong on the internet.
Even AI bots. ;)
LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well, that would mean it actually has to be funny. I feel we have failed to clear the bar for that standard. LOL
Cheers Twinky.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Jonah's ??????????????????????????????
LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.