Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 1:28 PM
421 online now:
edge, JonF, PaulK, RAZD, ringo (5 members, 416 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,021 Year: 16,627/21,208 Month: 2,516/3,593 Week: 629/882 Day: 61/86 Hour: 3/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Points for a creator (Alaninnont and Subbie only)
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2877 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 61 of 65 (506203)
04-23-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by subbie
04-23-2009 4:24 PM


Re: First organisms
What belief system is that? So far, the only thing that I've said about "belief" is that I don't believe in a creator.

Which is belief system.

Petty insults and tu quoque fallacies don't make much impact on me.

None were given or intended.

I can only conclude that you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I've said...

Petty insults and tu quoque fallacies don't have much of an impact on me.

While you made a number of good points and gave me some new ideas when discussing the original creation of the universe, I have found your other input somewhat sparse. You have spent a lot of time in accusations and asking for sources and evidence. While I think I understand your motives for this, it is not supplying the discussion with new information or moving it forward. As I said in a previous post, I have been finding it unproductive of late.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 04-23-2009 4:24 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 04-23-2009 11:25 PM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 62 of 65 (506210)
04-23-2009 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by alaninnont
04-23-2009 8:54 PM


Re: First organisms
alaninnont writes:

I can't help but notice the similarities between your belief system [atheism] and that of some fundamentallist religious groups.

Really? You find my dismissal of something for which there is no evidence to be similar to their acceptance of something for which there is no evidence. Curious.

alaninnont writes:

subbie writes:

I can only conclude that you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I've said...


[Your ellipses]

Petty insults and tu quoque fallacies don't have much of an impact on me.

Curious that you chose to ignore the fact that I laid out several different options. Also, the effect of parroting my words back at me is diminished considerably given that you obviously don't know what a tu quoque fallacy is.

You have spent a lot of time in accusations and asking for sources and evidence. While I think I understand your motives for this, it is not supplying the discussion with new information or moving it forward.

Perhaps after you've been debating for a while, you will understand that asking for evidence in support of a contention is a rather standard practice. My motives in doing so were to find out if there was any factual basis for the claims you made. When you failed to supply any the only reasonable conclusion is that you had none. In making it apparent that you have no support for some of your claims, I am in fact adding information to the discussion. Perhaps you might even realize it someday.

As I said in a previous post, I have been finding it unproductive of late.

Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

I'm going to assume that you are satisfied that I responded to all of your "points" from your failure to identify any that I haven't responded to, particularly since I asked you to identify them.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by alaninnont, posted 04-23-2009 8:54 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by alaninnont, posted 04-24-2009 6:11 PM subbie has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2877 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 63 of 65 (506288)
04-24-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by subbie
04-23-2009 11:25 PM


Re: First organisms
Really? You find my dismissal of something for which there is no evidence to be similar to their acceptance of something for which there is no evidence. Curious.

Your evidence is that nobody has proven the contrary. A creationist could just as well say that they believe in God because nobody has proved that he doesn't exist. What's the difference?

Curious that you chose to ignore the fact that I laid out several different options. Also, the effect of parroting my words back at me is diminished considerably given that you obviously don't know what a tu quoque fallacy is.

You're right. My latin is a bit rusty.(practically nonexistant) The comment was parroted to show you that you assumed an insult when none was given.

Perhaps after you've been debating for a while....

Perhaps here is the problem. I don't see this as a debate while it seems you do. I'm looking for information and new ideas and these have been in short supply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 04-23-2009 11:25 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 04-24-2009 10:41 PM alaninnont has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 64 of 65 (506293)
04-24-2009 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by alaninnont
04-24-2009 6:11 PM


Re: First organisms
quote:
Your evidence is that nobody has proven the contrary. A creationist could just as well say that they believe in God because nobody has proved that he doesn't exist. What's the difference?

No, my position is that there is no evidence. That's not at all the same as saying "nobody has proven the contrary." While it's true that the absence of evidence isn't proof of non-existence, it is at least a rational reason for non-belief.

quote:
I'm looking for information and new ideas and these have been in short supply.

There's little point is adding new ideas until you understand those that I've already presented. And the first quote from you in this post is proof positive that you don't.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by alaninnont, posted 04-24-2009 6:11 PM alaninnont has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by alaninnont, posted 04-25-2009 8:08 AM subbie has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 2877 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 65 of 65 (506317)
04-25-2009 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by subbie
04-24-2009 10:41 PM


Re: First organisms
I'm going to stop posting on this thread Subbie. Thanks for the discussion and your input.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 04-24-2009 10:41 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017