Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 114 of 276 (568726)
07-14-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 7:43 PM


bluescat48 writes:
I have no problems being an Atheist & Evolutionist whereas I had many when I was a theist/creationist, its called evidence.
Evidence is not a problem. This is like saying that gravity was a problem before Newton proposed the idea. We weren't floating around before Newton came along.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 7:43 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by bluescat48, posted 07-18-2010 9:50 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 116 of 276 (568950)
07-19-2010 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by bluescat48
07-18-2010 9:50 AM


Re: Clarity
bluescat48 writes:
Right evidence is not the problem, lack of evidence was.
The courts are full of cases which due to a "lack of evidence" are unsuccessfully prosecuted. More usually however, there is overwhelming evidence for a successful legal challenge but the perpetrator still goes acquitted due to technicalities, poor lawyers, costs, or a failure to interpret the evidence.
I wonder which of those applies in this case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by bluescat48, posted 07-18-2010 9:50 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by subbie, posted 07-19-2010 4:21 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 118 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 5:02 PM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 119 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-19-2010 5:49 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 07-20-2010 1:37 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 120 of 276 (569086)
07-20-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Theodoric
07-19-2010 5:02 PM


Re: Clarity
subbie writes:
Actually, it's quite unusual for a criminal case to be thrown out on a technicality, and I've never heard of a criminal case with overwhelming evidence being dismissed because of the cost. Poor lawyering skills are much more likely to result in a flawed conviction than an acquittal in the face of overwhelming evidence. It's also quite rare for a jury to misinterpret overwhelming evidence.
Theodoric writes:
Please provide evidence, statistics, studies or whatever you have to back this up.
Big_Al35 writes:
I won't hold my breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 5:02 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2010 11:15 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2010 11:35 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 125 by subbie, posted 07-20-2010 3:02 PM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(2)
Message 126 of 276 (569245)
07-21-2010 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by subbie
07-20-2010 3:02 PM


Re: Clarity
Modulous writes:
skipping over the slight fact that as much as they try and smear the defendant they bring (un)surprisingly little evidence in favour of their hypotheses of creation etc.
subbie writes:
Your turn, and I won't hold my breath, dickhead.
Who is trying to smear who? Here is your evidence that it is evolutionists who are trying to smear creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by subbie, posted 07-20-2010 3:02 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Modulous, posted 07-21-2010 8:56 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 135 by subbie, posted 07-21-2010 8:58 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 127 of 276 (569247)
07-21-2010 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Theodoric
07-20-2010 11:35 AM


Re: Clarity
Theodoric writes:
So this is how you debate.
1) You make an unevidenced assertion.
2) You are called on it. People ask for your evidence.
3) You demand evidence showing that your assertion is not true.
1) My name is ....
2) I am rarely asked for evidence of my name. If anyone does ask I would only provide proof if I felt there was a legitimate reason to give them proof.
3) 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. Innocent until proven guilty and all that etc.
I would suggest that it is your debating technique that is flawed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2010 11:35 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 7:29 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 132 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 8:46 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 129 of 276 (569254)
07-21-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Huntard
07-21-2010 7:29 AM


Re: Clarity
Huntard writes:
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?
This is where legitimate reasons come into play. Clearly your brain seems to have difficulty comprehending legitimate reasons. A condition called autism springs to mind.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 7:29 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 8:31 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 131 of 276 (569258)
07-21-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Huntard
07-21-2010 8:31 AM


Re: Clarity
Huntard writes:
Really? You really missed the entire point of my post?
Yes, you are right. I did miss the entire point of your post. What was the point of your post again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 8:31 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 8:49 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 136 by Huntard, posted 07-21-2010 8:58 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 137 of 276 (569275)
07-21-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 8:46 AM


Re: Clarity
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:
I would suggest that you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
If you are suggesting that I might be suffering from illusory inferiority....hmm you might have a point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 8:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 10:18 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 11:05 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 140 of 276 (569338)
07-21-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Dr Adequate
07-21-2010 11:05 AM


Re: Clarity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-21-2010 11:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 1:40 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 142 by subbie, posted 07-21-2010 2:02 PM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 143 of 276 (569359)
07-21-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by subbie
07-21-2010 2:02 PM


Re: Clarity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by subbie, posted 07-21-2010 2:02 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Theodoric, posted 07-21-2010 3:35 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 146 by subbie, posted 07-21-2010 6:18 PM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 147 of 276 (569537)
07-22-2010 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by subbie
07-21-2010 6:18 PM


Re: Clarity
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by subbie, posted 07-21-2010 6:18 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Huntard, posted 07-22-2010 8:04 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 150 by subbie, posted 07-22-2010 10:19 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(2)
Message 149 of 276 (569557)
07-22-2010 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Huntard
07-22-2010 8:04 AM


Re: Clarity
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Huntard, posted 07-22-2010 8:04 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 151 of 276 (569583)
07-22-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by subbie
07-22-2010 10:19 AM


Re: Clarity
subbie writes:
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.
....but this is a great opportunity to get back on topic. Let's do this now. Moderators...where are you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by subbie, posted 07-22-2010 10:19 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Theodoric, posted 07-22-2010 11:21 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 153 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2010 11:27 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 154 of 276 (569610)
07-22-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by AdminModulous
07-22-2010 11:27 AM


Re: You called for a moderator?
Please keep this in mind if you continue posting.
I don't think I will be posting on this particular thread further as it's clearly for evolutionists. Furthermore, those points particularly about repeating yourself apply more to other members than myself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by AdminModulous, posted 07-22-2010 11:27 AM AdminModulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 916 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


(1)
Message 241 of 276 (582418)
09-21-2010 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Tram law
09-20-2010 7:29 PM


Re: trust
Tram law writes:
KJV
Acts 2:1 - 'And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.'
NIV
Acts 2:1 - 'When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.'
So, without the word accord in the NIV version, that would mean that they were not in agreement with each other. That changes the entire message, does it not?
The second NIV passage makes no mention of whether they were in agreement or not. They may or may not have been. So your conclusion above is incorrect.
Agreement over what anyway? The KJV gives no indication. As followers of 'the way' they are likely to have agreed over some things and disagreed over other things like we all do and therefore the word accord is redundant. The translators of the KJV have adopted an overkill strategy that doesn't read or translate as nicely as the NIV.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Tram law, posted 09-20-2010 7:29 PM Tram law has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Coragyps, posted 09-21-2010 10:15 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 243 by Omnivorous, posted 09-21-2010 12:01 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 244 by jar, posted 09-21-2010 1:00 PM Big_Al35 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