|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
To show you that the burden of proof is not upon the one disbelieving the claim.
Here, let me break it down for you, if you don;t get it after that (or pretend to), I would advise you to either learn something before you comment again, even if it is just reading comprehension or a quick "how to debate" course, or just give up here, because ther's obviously no point in trying to teach you something. Ok, here we go: You stated in Message 127:
Big_Al35 writes:
This measn that unless someone can without a doubt show your name isn't ..., he should take your word for it. This is not how you operate in real life, now is it? You don't go around believing people until you can prove them wrong. If you can't prove that my name isn't .... then shouldn't you assume that I am telling the truth until such time as you have evidence that I am lying. To this I replied with the following in Message 128 Huntard writes:
Here I tell you that you're trying to be funny again. Perhaps I misjudged, and you really don't understand the slightest thing about how the world works. I also tell you that your statement in the previous message is wrong.
Although you're trying to be clever again, number three is actually wrong. Huntard writes:
I ask you a question. A question you haven't answered. Would you care to do so?
Until you can prove that your name is ... or any other claim you make, why should we take your word for it? Huntard writes:
I use an argument ad absurdum to show you why having to disprove something before not beliving it to be true is a stupid thing to do. If you really thought you should disprove things before you can stop believing them, you should be sending me 1 million dollars every minute. Since I do not hold the position that I should disporve something before I don't belive it, your reply in Message 129:
Until you can prove that you shouldn't send me a million dollars every minute, are you going to send me a million dollars every minute? Big_Al35 writes:
Shows that you missed the entire point of my message. Because I am not the one advocating that kind of behaviour, and in fact think it's completely stupid to act that way. You on the other hand say this is perfectly normal, so, I await your 1 million dollar deposits, thank you very much.
Anway, until you can prove you shouldn't send me two million dollars every minute, I guess the balance is a cheque in my favour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 826 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: In those case where you are, as when you are applying for a passport or stopped by the police, I suggest that you should not try to shift the burden of proof. Neither bureaucrats nor policemen appreciate a smartass. Thanks for the advice.
Dr Adequate writes: The implausibility of a claim is evidence suggesting (though not proving) its falsehood. If you claimed that your parents had christened you Humpty Dumpty Haddock-Floss Wufflepuff T. Bone Steak, then I should be a little skeptical: more so than if you claimed to be called Peter Jenkins or Joe Schultz. If I claimed my name was Humpty Dumpty Haddock-Floss Wufflepuff T. Bone Steak then indeed you might be skeptical. More than skeptical I should imagine. You might even call me a liar point blank. Or you might find the funny side of this and allow it to become acceptable fraud. A mentality where "we all know this is a fake but who cares" might set in. Are you suggesting that my claim that "the courts are full of cases which....." falls in the same category as the ridiculous name you give above! Some might agree but I would disagree. If I claimed my name was Peter Jenkins then this sounds plausible but could be the bigger lie due to its convincing appeal. It's too easy to fake names like this. John Smith would be another. Are you suggesting the my claim falls into the second category of more convincing but more fraudulent? I reject both these possibilities. My point is that if you make the assertion that an opinion is false then you should supply evidence of this as you are accusing the contributor of lying. People are entitled to an opinion whether they have evidence or not for that opinion. Haven't you heard about Old Wives Tales?
Dr Adequate writes:
If you are suggesting that I might be suffering from illusory inferiority....hmm you might have a point.
I would suggest that you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Your argument is ridiculous on its face.
Are you suggesting that my claim that "the courts are full of cases which....." falls in the same category as the ridiculous name you give above! Obviously it does fall in the same category, since everyone has questioned it.
might agree but I would disagree.
You seem to think you can just make up shit willy-nilly and others should accept it as fact. There has been empirical evidence presented already showing you that you are wrong. We have all noticed that you have presented no evidence to back up your assertion, even after evidence was provided that you are full of shit. You have fallen back on the old creationist, half-wit, position.
Creationist and Moron writes:
Only an idiot would agree to disagree with empirical facts. Well, we just need to agree to disagree Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are you suggesting that my claim that "the courts are full of cases which....." falls in the same category as the ridiculous name you give above! Some might agree but I would disagree. Some people seem to find your claim highly implausible. As my own knowledge of the American legal system extends no further than watching old episodes of Law & Order, my position is more agnostic.
My point is that if you make the assertion that an opinion is false then you should supply evidence of this as you are accusing the contributor of lying. Or just being wrong. And no, it's generally your job to substantiate your claims (unless your claim takes the form of a universal, which in this case it didn't).
People are entitled to an opinion whether they have evidence or not for that opinion. You're entitled to the opinion that you're a small purple giraffe called Gerald. It's a free country. Other people are entitled to ask you for evidence, and to dismiss your claims if you don't present any. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 826 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Other people are entitled to ask you for evidence, and to dismiss your claims if you don't present any. If you wish to dismiss my claims you are welcome to do so. You should say this to someone who gives a damn. Where is the debate coming from if you are going to dismiss all opinions/ideas. I don't really see anyone providing proof of anything here. And I certainly am not about to start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
It is truly amazing. You have made 7 posts since you made your ridiculous claim. Still not one iota of evidence.
Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I don't really see anyone providing proof of anything here. Wow. In addition to simply making up bullshit, you're also ignoring the evidence in Message 125 produced to show that your bullshit is bullshit. You're raising bad faith debating to a new level. Grats! Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson 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 It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 826 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Wow. In addition to simply making up bullshit, you're also ignoring the evidence in Message 125 produced to show that your bullshit is bullshit. You're raising bad faith debating to a new level. Grats! This bullshit....erm....evidence supports my claim! I don't expect you to understand that mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
This bullshit....erm....evidence supports my claim! I don't expect you to understand that mind. Please explain how that evidence supports your claim. Or are we going to get you classic "read what I posted already"? Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, you'll get some new unsupported claim.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
This bullshit....erm....evidence supports my claim! I don't expect you to understand that mind. Well, you're going to have to explain to me how evidence that the exclusionary rule results in dismissal of a very small fraction of prosecutions supports your claim that "More usually however, there is overwhelming evidence for a successful legal challenge but the perpetrator still goes acquitted due to technicalities." Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson 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 It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 826 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
subbie writes: Well, you're going to have to explain to me how evidence that the exclusionary rule results in dismissal of a very small fraction of prosecutions supports your claim No, I don't have to explain this because apart from anything else it is off topic. I want to know what are your problems with being an atheist/evolutionist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2321 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Your most artful dodge yet. So, again it seems that something you made up is not supported by any evidence.
Tell us when you'll stop making stuff up please, so we can start taking you seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 826 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Your most artful dodge yet. So, again it seems that something you made up is not supported by any evidence. No problems with being an athiest/evolutionist then? Moderator can we close this thread down?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
No, I don't have to explain this because apart from anything else it is off topic. But you're the one who brought it into the discussion in the first place. So, to summarize again: You make up some bullshit that's off topic. I point out your bullshit is bullshit, and others ask you to provide evidence of your bullshit. You turn that back around on me and ask me to provide evidence that your bullshit is bullshit. I do that, then again ask you to provide your evidence. You again refuse and try to abandon the point by complaining that it's off topic. Seriously, Slick, you could challenge Buzsaw for the title of worst EvC poster evaaaaaaaaaaar! Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson 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 It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024