Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Law Of Contradiction
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 61 of 177 (339330)
08-11-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2006 11:54 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC
quote:
But there is always one thing they are typically incapable of answering truthfully. The mere fact that they spend inordinate amounts of time attempting to dissuade you in your faith coupled with the fact that many of them turn rabid against Christians speaks very loudly that there is still part of them that wants to believe, and in certain respects, do still believe. Case in point: I don't believe in flying-purple elephants. Because I don't believe in them I find no compulsion to argue about their existence, much less give it any thought. But this doesnt work for the atheist, otherwise, why not just spend as much time attempting to refute the existence of the flying-purple elephant? Why not something arbitrary to argue about?
Interesting. Why do you spend your time arguing against atheism?
Is this because you are really an atheist, or does your magic pop psychology in which people magically believe the opposite of what they say only apply to other people and not to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 11:54 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 10:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 177 (339388)
08-11-2006 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by robinrohan
08-11-2006 7:27 PM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Yes he did. So did I. See message #3.
I notice that by n_j's reasoning I must be a right-wing religious conservative who believes in the Loch Ness Monster; crystal healing, an alien origin for crop circles; the complicity of GWB in 9/11; and homeopathic medicine. Oh, and I must really hate whales. Nasty blubbery fish. Hate hate hate. But of course I'm "in denial" and will never admit this.
Either that, or arguing for something is a sign that you agree with it, and arguing against something is a sign that you disagree with it.
You wouldn't think it would be necessary to explain this even to a creationist, but the motto of these people seems to be "If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's an aardvark." In the same way, it seems that when they hear a man arguing that God doesn't exist, they immediately peg him as a theist.
Funny people, creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by robinrohan, posted 08-11-2006 7:27 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2006 12:58 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 121 by Annafan, posted 08-13-2006 4:03 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 107 of 177 (339491)
08-12-2006 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Hyroglyphx
08-12-2006 12:58 AM


Re: Welcome to EvC
Oh, come on, n_j --- haven't you ever argued in favor of something that you thought was true? Are you only passionate about things which you know to be false? If some, you have my pity and contempt in equal measure; and my assurance that normal people argue for what they believe and against what they disbelieve.
Throttle back, you're getting frothy spittle all over my screen. What did the whales ever do to you?
I have no idea why I hate whales so much, but since I argue heatedly in favor of their preservation, I must secretly want them wiped out, yes?
Here's the difference champ: I don't believe in Zeus ...
As you said you don't believe in Zeus, I take it that means that you do. As, I suppose, do all the so-called "Christians" who get so angry about neopaganism. Polytheists, the lot of them, clearly. "In denial", though, of course.
No, no, no.... you've got it backwards. If an evolutionists thinks it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be related to a nematode.
It is not enough to shout "tu quoque", it is also necessary to be right. Now in point of fact, you never see any evolutionist claim that anyone who argues for creationism must be an evolutionist "in denial". 'Cos we have more sense.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2006 12:58 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 108 of 177 (339494)
08-12-2006 6:51 AM


Here are some people who, it would seem, believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. "In denial", of course.
i do not know why you might have suggested something weird like this anyways; who might have though the flying spaghetti monster or whatever would be compared to someone like Jesus. First of all the Flying Spaghetti Monster is made up of matter, and so it had to created in the first place.
whatever fools believe in this load of crap are going to burn in hell, and that would be of your doings. Yes, it was their choice to believe in it, but you gave them the idea and with their simple minds they took it and died with it.
So if you can live with the thought of people burning in eternal Hell and crying out in pure agony, then by all means be my guest.
And any idiot would understand that the possibility of a 'flying spaghetti monster' being the god who made the earth and everything in it is beyond ridiculous.
So either you're an alcoholic and all of your brain cells have been destroyed, or your just plain stupid.
what the hell is this? PASTAFARIAN?!? that doesn't even make sense!! why the hell would god be PASTA?!?
are you high when you decided to make up the spaghetti monster casue i think you were their is no such thing as the spaghtti monste.
I do believe you are a fucking retard and I hope you burn in hell. Fuck you and the flying spaghetti monster ... God is not a flying spaghetti monster because only a human could think up such a dumbass retarded idea like that.
When basing a comparison on "COMMON SENSE" the FSM makes absolutely NO SENSE! "Why then are the mountain tops not made of spaghetti noodalege. Is not the water on the earth a steaming pot of spaghetti sauce?" Dude thats what your crap sounds like. So in essence, from having read your website, I can conclude that it is irrational to believe in the FSM ...
ok first off i want to start by asking do you really believe everything that you wrote on that page about us being created by a freaking giant spaghetti monster?? cuz if you do wow give me some of what your on cuz it has got to be strong in order to have you believing that a spaghette monster created us.....
oh by the way. i am having spaghetti and meatballs tonight u little prick. i think i will just throw it in the trash cause thats where it belongs. along with your fake whack religion and fake god. so have a nice day, and hope u have fun gettin raped by your spaghetti and meatball, FAKE god.
They wouldn't get so worked up, would they, unless, deep down, they believed that the world was made by supernatural pasta?
Either that, or when they say the FSM is a dumb idea, they mean it.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 141 of 177 (340079)
08-14-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Hyroglyphx
08-14-2006 12:33 PM


Re: What atheism really means
There is only one answer that makes any sense for anyone would obstinantly oppose a notion they don't believe exists in the first place.
You are right.
There is only one reason why anyone would argue against God when they "don't believe it exists in the first place".
There is only one reason why anyone would argue against evolution when they "don't believe it exists in the first place".
There is only one reason why anyone would argue against the existence of intermediate forms in the fossil record when they "don't believe they exist in the first place".
There is only one reason why anyone would argue against crystal healing when they "don't believe it exists in the first place".
There is only one reason why people would argue against the Loch Ness Monster when they "don't believe it exists in the first place".
There is only one reason why people argue against Uri Geller's psychic ability to bend spoons when they "don't believe it exists in the first place".
Yes, there is only one answer that makes sense, when explaining why people argue against the existence of things.
The answer is ... and this, it seems, will astonish you ...
* drumroll please *
The answer is --- that they don't believe that these things exist.
When someone argues that something doesn't exist, it is because they think that that thing does not exist.
How many times does this need to be explained to you before it sinks in?
People argue FOR things which they BELIEVE, and AGAINST things which they DISBELIEVE.
Sheesh.
The "creationist theory of psychology", if I may call it such, is crazier than all the rest put together. We are not born with a knowledge of geology or biology or genetics or paleontology or morphology --- but even as children we all understood human nature just by instinct, like we could throw or catch a ball without learning physics.
You have managed to suppress this ability. You are incapable of even reaching the most basic and obvious conclusions to be drawn from the behavior of others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-14-2006 12:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024