Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 62 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Blunders that Atheist make all the time:
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Greetings,

I think I can speak for all of us, it'll be a pleasure having you here, Sparhafoc. 8-)

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:16 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Thank you kindly, James. It's nice to be here.

Gary
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:07 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:To be dishonest implies that you had the option to be honest, that you could have been honest..................agree?


When you call someone dishonest (creationists for example) you are granting that he had the option to be honest..............agree?



the blunders comes because many atheist are determinists, they don't believe that there was an other option, but call people dishonest.


so you ether grant that at least sometimes we have more than 1 option (meaning that determinism is wrong) or stop calling people dishonest, because if determinism is true they really had no other option and you cant really accuse them for being dishonest.



the other 3 comments deal with a similar type of blunder



I can't oblige you to read what I wrote, but you can hardly expect to come back with questions I've already addressed in the post directly above your reply and expect me to write out the reply again. ;)

I'll do synopsis format.

1st sentence: No, that's just a contrived attempt to emulate a Ray Comfort level of obfuscation.

2nd sentence: No, that's just a contrived attempt to emulate a Ray Comfort level of obfuscation.

3rd sentence: Cite your quantitative source for this assertion regarding what 'many atheists' allegedly believe. Also, it's a non-sequitur: determinism doesn't mean 'believes peoples thoughts are pre-determined, but rather that every event and affair is a result of an antecedent event or affair. It's a really poor sentence that starts with an assertion you've made up and ends with, at best reading, a terminal miscomprehension of the charge you're attempting to lay.*

4th sentence: absurd as you've dug a hole and expect others to fill it for you. Worse, you think you get to use your strawman and manufactured series of assertions as if it were a moral compunction which has been failed by the heathen.

Worse, the first sentence of my previous post which you are, presumably, replying to says "Firstly, obviously given my complete dismissal of the entire notion of free will, I also want to make it clear that I don't think that most creationists are dishonest. I think they are wrong, inculcated, often undereducated, and they lend undue credence to authority figures who shepherd them round the philosophical obstacles."

So why is the notion of Creationist dishonesty back? Oh that's right, because you insist that I think Creationists are dishonest, and it doesn't matter whether I say the opposite, you're still more knowledgeable about me and my motivations than I am, having just 'met' me yesterday. :roll:


Finally, do you still beat your wife? Or to put it another way: I wholly reject on rational grounds every single word you uttered in the above post.



* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.



again, all I am saying is that by calling someone dishonest, you are granting that he had a choice, you are granting human choice.



you can ether agree and accept this simple and uncontroversial fact, or do what other atheist did...........namely, play semantic games, make irrelevant comments and start a meaningless and tired conversation would last more than 6 months.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:18 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:again, all I am saying is that by calling someone dishonest, you are granting that he had a choice, you are granting human choice.


And all I am saying is that your feelings for small children are not normal and you should seek help before you hurt someone.

What?

It's what you're doing to me. Of course you're not a pedophile, but then I am not someone who calls all Creationists dishonest and you're still patronizing me as if I hadn't told you the exact opposite of what you're trying to beat me over the head with.

Reap what you sow, sir.

Want a serious discussion? Get serious.



leroy wrote:ou can ether agree and accept this simple and uncontroversial fact,...


Oh no no no no. What you've espoused is not a fact. Don't be absurd. You might enjoy the notion of having your opinions magically convert into the gospel according to the supreme overbeing, but that's not how it works.

What you've stated is, at best possible reading, an opinion. It also happens to be an invalid opinion because it's based on faulty assumptions.

As such, pop your hubris away and let's continue with discussing positions that we do hold, instead of incessant strawmanning.


leroy wrote:or do what other atheist did...........namely, play semantic games, make irrelevant comments and start a meaningless and tired conversation would last more than 6 months.


Sorry Leroy, but you clearly misunderstand how this works. If you want your half-baked, barely coherent ideas to be granted the status of acceptance by those with a functioning rational brain, then you will need to show support and substantiate your claims. You don't get to make your opinion the yardstick by which we judge whether someone else' opinion is 'meaningless'.

For me personally, if you had a good argument, you wouldn't be resorting to so many logical fallacies. Poisoning the well has to be the lowest form of argumentative failing going, but you've just employed it.

My take on this is that you can't compete fairly with other people here because you don't possess the competence, so you think making up rules on the fly will be convenient for you.

Sorry to say, sir, but you can pop those rules back whence they came and wiggle.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:57 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Sparhafoc wrote:Sorry Leroy, but you clearly misunderstand how this works. If you want your half-baked, barely coherent ideas to be granted the status of acceptance by those with a functioning rational brain, then you will need to show support and substantiate your claims. You don't get to make your opinion the yardstick by which we judge whether someone else' opinion is 'meaningless'.

Well let me help you there. Leroy's definition of will is that sometimes you have a choice.
What is Leroy's definition of choice? The idea that sometimes you have options.
What is Leroy's definition of option? The idea that sometimes you have choices.
The idea that sometimes you have choices means sometimes you have will means sometimes you have libertarian free will means sometimes you have options, etc.

Welcome to the ever-expanding Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc.".

Leroy wrote:you can ether agree and accept this simple and uncontroversial fact, or do what other atheist did...........namely, play semantic games, make irrelevant comments and start a meaningless and tired conversation would last more than 6 months.

This accusation is always hilarious and hypocritical coming from someone's whose definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc." is the same thing.

Think Leroy works in a movie theater? He knows projections.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:20 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

It does seem rather hypocritical to decry other people allegedly playing semantic games when having started your post with:


again, all I am saying is that by calling someone dishonest, you are granting that he had a choice, you are granting human choice.


Especially when pointing that remark at someone who had just written:


Worse, the first sentence of my previous post which you are, presumably, replying to says "Firstly, obviously given my complete dismissal of the entire notion of free will, I also want to make it clear that I don't think that most creationists are dishonest. I think they are wrong, inculcated, often undereducated, and they lend undue credence to authority figures who shepherd them round the philosophical obstacles."

Which references a yet previous version of me explaining why I don't accept the tawdry notion of free will in the first instance:


How about: I don"t believe that Free Will is a valid concept. I don't think it's the right way to think about volition, the way the brain works, what its role is - there's a philosophical underpinning to the notion that I find unacceptable. That there is the potential for Will to exist without the brain. Is the brain not Will itself? Isn't the entire body, including both macro and cellular processes part of the thing that possesses the Will? Is an involuntary blink 'not free will'? It doesn't make sense to me, never has, and I don't think ever will.

Instead, I think that there are many processes, some of which we are conscious of, some of which we are not. We have executive control over some of those processes, but rarely final and ultimate control. For example, we breath involuntarily - we breathe when we're asleep every night without ever needing to be aware of it. However, we can actively stop ourselves breathing, or control our breath in complex ways that have no genuine role in terms of initial anatomical functionality, we can bring ourselves to red faced panting.... but then will or no our body takes over and stops us. But isn't that really us just stopping us? Did you really want to? Was there really a will there to not breathe? Can there be? Is there anything about Will being somehow subject-independent that isn't rife with internal contradictions? Isn't this just dualism repackaged?

Me no gets it. Either which way, sure if I can go either left or right and both are wholly equal, I can choose which way independently of anything other than me choosing which way. But yeah, it's dependent on me, and me.



Odd how that wasn't touched with a figurative bargepole and yet he's still telling me why it's wrong to call Creationists dishonest even after I'd already said I don't.

Any which way, I think someone needs to spend more time reading and yes, less time projecting! ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:29 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Sparhafoc wrote:It does seem rather hypocritical to decry other people allegedly playing semantic games when having started your post with:


again, all I am saying is that by calling someone dishonest, you are granting that he had a choice, you are granting human choice.


Especially when pointing that remark at someone who had just written:


Worse, the first sentence of my previous post which you are, presumably, replying to says "Firstly, obviously given my complete dismissal of the entire notion of free will, I also want to make it clear that I don't think that most creationists are dishonest. I think they are wrong, inculcated, often undereducated, and they lend undue credence to authority figures who shepherd them round the philosophical obstacles."

Which references a yet previous version of me explaining why I don't accept the tawdry notion of free will in the first instance:


How about: I don"t believe that Free Will is a valid concept. I don't think it's the right way to think about volition, the way the brain works, what its role is - there's a philosophical underpinning to the notion that I find unacceptable. That there is the potential for Will to exist without the brain. Is the brain not Will itself? Isn't the entire body, including both macro and cellular processes part of the thing that possesses the Will? Is an involuntary blink 'not free will'? It doesn't make sense to me, never has, and I don't think ever will.

Instead, I think that there are many processes, some of which we are conscious of, some of which we are not. We have executive control over some of those processes, but rarely final and ultimate control. For example, we breath involuntarily - we breathe when we're asleep every night without ever needing to be aware of it. However, we can actively stop ourselves breathing, or control our breath in complex ways that have no genuine role in terms of initial anatomical functionality, we can bring ourselves to red faced panting.... but then will or no our body takes over and stops us. But isn't that really us just stopping us? Did you really want to? Was there really a will there to not breathe? Can there be? Is there anything about Will being somehow subject-independent that isn't rife with internal contradictions? Isn't this just dualism repackaged?

Me no gets it. Either which way, sure if I can go either left or right and both are wholly equal, I can choose which way independently of anything other than me choosing which way. But yeah, it's dependent on me, and me.



Odd how that wasn't touched with a figurative bargepole and yet he's still telling me why it's wrong to call Creationists dishonest even after I'd already said I don't.

Any which way, I think someone needs to spend more time reading and yes, less time projecting! ;)



again, no one is accusing you personally for calling creationists (or any one else) dishonest.


all I am saying is that by claiming that someone is dishonest you would be granting human choice. If you haven't call anyone dishonest, then grate, you don't have to grant human choice.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:42 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:again, no one is accusing you personally for calling creationists (or any one else) dishonest.


Again? :?

Assuming not, then why are you pointing your point at me? I don't want your point - I already prefaced your point with a point that pointedly depointed your point.

I can't answer your question about what people who accept determinism (which incidentally in your specific neological construction means something wholly different than it is commonly used) could justify calling a Creationist 'dishonest' - to me, you'd need to ask yourself the same question as to how they could not call someone dishonest who is being dishonest if they similarly have no choice as to what to do.

But as determinism has precisely bugger all to do with choices, and as I've already explained why so many people get confused about this, and as you've had explained to you the fact that determinism is concerned with the notion of events or affairs arising from pre-existing events or affairs, then I think it's not really coherent of you to expect people to buy into a bunch of hooey they have expressly demolished just to satisfy your manufactured gotcha.

To me, your question is the problem with respect to any answer. How does one answer an unintelligible question? Unintelligibly? Then my answer is Wednesday covered in jam.


leroy wrote:all I am saying is that by claiming that someone is dishonest you would be granting human choice. If you haven't call anyone dishonest, then grate, you don't have to grant human choice.


Choice is nothing to do with determinism. Next.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:47 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 848Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:[all I am saying is that by claiming that someone is dishonest you would be granting human choice. If you haven't call anyone dishonest, then grate, you don't have to grant human choice.

According to Leroy, that person would be granting "human choice".
What is this "human coice" that you would be granting? That sometimes you have "options".
What are "options"? They are "human choices".

You would be "granting" something viciously circular and ultimately meaningless.

And I'll highlight again: according to Leroy, god doesn't have Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc. because he doesn't have the option to be honest or dishonest.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:49 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Hold on a second. Is this another one of those I used X word, and everyone knows what X word means, but I want everyone to accept that X means Y for an apparent thought experiment....

Have you considered the faulty reasoning here may be in that you want to make up new definitions for old words thereby making communication nearly impossible?

Let's define our terms.

Determinism: the position that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

When you say the word 'determinism' that's what I hear. What do you hear when I say the word 'determinism'?

If your usage is different than mine, shouldn't we dispute the different interpretations as to which one is more accurate or useful?

Or are we all just obliged to play catch up as you waltz your way through the English language amending it on the fly?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:52 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

MarsCydonia wrote:And I'll highlight again: according to Leroy, god doesn't have Leroy's definition of "human choices/options/will/free will/libertarian free will/freedom/etc. because he doesn't have the option to be honest or dishonest.



Ahhh so Leroy must think his god is a total putz then.

Well, Hanlon's razor would suggest that given the botch job the ineffable made down here.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:53 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Sparhafoc wrote:Hold on a second. Is this another one of those I used X word, and everyone knows what X word means, but I want everyone to accept that X means Y for an apparent thought experiment....

Have you considered the faulty reasoning here may be in that you want to make up new definitions for old words thereby making communication nearly impossible?

Let's define our terms.

Determinism: the position that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

When you say the word 'determinism' that's what I hear. What do you hear when I say the word 'determinism'?

If your usage is different than mine, shouldn't we dispute the different interpretations as to which one is more accurate or useful?

Or are we all just obliged to play catch up as you waltz your way through the English language amending it on the fly?


I am not trying to do creative semantics
Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do

https://www.britannica.com/topic/determinism


to be dishonest implies that there was an other option (be honest) agree? .



............
honestly why is this so hard to understand. ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jun 30, 2017 5:36 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:I am not trying to do creative semantics
Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do




Ahh finally, you've presented a definition. Sadly, I don't accept that definition as you can imagine given I've already told you that I think the notion of Free Will is bunk. My definition is vastly better and also seems to solve the problem you think you've identified. It's also how the word is used in the sciences.


leroy wrote:to be dishonest implies that there was an other option (be honest) agree? .


No, you just wrote that you wouldn't play semantics. No one wants to agree with such a half-baked notion. Like there's a moment in decision-making where you have 2 options where you can go left towards honesty or right towards dishonesty. That's not how the brain works. I used to have a friend for many years who was a pathological liar. He couldn't help himself. He'd lie to self-aggrandize, and he'd lie so often, he'd forget what he said before, or he'd lie about a situation where you had been present and knew that never occurred.

But even though it sounds odd, I wouldn't call him dishonest. For the most part he was a perfectly trustworthy guy. It's only when it came to matters which could potentially elevate himself in the eyes of his peers that the bullshit-generator would fire up, and I don't think he even really wanted to bullshit, I think it stressed him out to find himself once again riffing with reality, but he couldn't help himself.

To me, the complexity of human interaction isn't and can never be understood from a binary analysis. There is no simple either/or, but rather extremely complex interactions between brain chemistry, body chemistry (i.e. dopamine production), memories and experiences, run through social and cultural pressures and symbols. I think any attempt to convert this complexity into a simple binary position is oversimplification, and I see no value to it whatsoever.

For me, you've created a false dilemma and excluded any other options. You have elected to present all human interaction as binary, and I think that's why you've found no one to accept your idea.

Have you considered that it's your idea which is the problem?


leroy wrote:............
honestly why is this so hard to understand. ?
[/quote]

Oh sorry - I am not sure how you're under the impression this is 'hard' to understand, because of course it's not hard to understand. The problem is the gross simplification one would need to join you in to play with your pet idea. It's not too hard - it's too simplified. Perhaps if you've got a history of failing to get people to accept your idea, you could attempt to evolve your idea rather than expect others to perform tricks on command?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:11 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2399Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

I think I can speak for all of us, it'll be a pleasure having you here, Sparhafoc. 8-)

Kindest regards,

James


I'm pretty sure you can't speak for all. Some are going to find his presence very uncomfortable indeed.

Your sentiment is well met, however.

Sparhafoc, me auld mucker, meet James, the man with the sweetest manners on the internet.
Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:07 am
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

hackenslash wrote:I'm pretty sure you can't speak for all. Some are going to find his presence very uncomfortable indeed.


Well. I aim to flay... er... please.


hackenslash wrote:Your sentiment is well met, however.

Sparhafoc, me auld mucker, meet James, the man with the sweetest manners on the internet.



He does indeed seem quite the courtly gentleman - a precious rarity in both this age and in such a venue!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:55 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Greetings,

Thank you, hackenslash, for the kind words (... "sweetest"? Makes me sound like a bunny wabbit...) As you know, I prefer honey to vinegar - not that I can't use the latter if my patience runs out.

Even those who'll find Sparhafoc's - and others - presence uncomfortable, I trust they'll eventually be glad having grown in knowledge, and as humane beings.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:23 pm
leroyPosts: 1795Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:I am not trying to do creative semantics
Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism is usually understood to preclude free will because it entails that humans cannot act otherwise than they do




Ahh finally, you've presented a definition. Sadly, I don't accept that definition as you can imagine given I've already told you that I think the notion of Free Will is bunk. My definition is vastly better and also seems to solve the problem you think you've identified. It's also how the word is used in the sciences.


leroy wrote:to be dishonest implies that there was an other option (be honest) agree? .


No, you just wrote that you wouldn't play semantics. No one wants to agree with such a half-baked notion. Like there's a moment in decision-making where you have 2 options where you can go left towards honesty or right towards dishonesty. That's not how the brain works. I used to have a friend for many years who was a pathological liar. He couldn't help himself. He'd lie to self-aggrandize, and he'd lie so often, he'd forget what he said before, or he'd lie about a situation where you had been present and knew that never occurred.

But even though it sounds odd, I wouldn't call him dishonest. For the most part he was a perfectly trustworthy guy. It's only when it came to matters which could potentially elevate himself in the eyes of his peers that the bullshit-generator would fire up, and I don't think he even really wanted to bullshit, I think it stressed him out to find himself once again riffing with reality, but he couldn't help himself.

To me, the complexity of human interaction isn't and can never be understood from a binary analysis. There is no simple either/or, but rather extremely complex interactions between brain chemistry, body chemistry (i.e. dopamine production), memories and experiences, run through social and cultural pressures and symbols. I think any attempt to convert this complexity into a simple binary position is oversimplification, and I see no value to it whatsoever.

For me, you've created a false dilemma and excluded any other options. You have elected to present all human interaction as binary, and I think that's why you've found no one to accept your idea.

Have you considered that it's your idea which is the problem?


leroy wrote:............
honestly why is this so hard to understand. ?


]

if you are not a determinist in the sense that I am using the term, the this dilema doesn't to apply for you.

But even though it sounds odd, I wouldn't call him dishonest




ok, he might not be a dishonest person in the general sense, but at least sometimes your friend lies, agree? with this I mean that he willingly provided incorrect information, when he could have had the option to say the truth.


and sure, the same is true with any other human being. there is nothing personal against your fried.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:45 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

leroy wrote:if you are not a determinist in the sense that I am using the term, the this dilema doesn't to apply for you.


No, the dilemma doesn't apply to me because I already told you before you pointed this manufactured 'dilemma' at me several times that I think the entire notion is specious hogwash that doesn't stand up to skeptical scrutiny.

That's why it doesn't apply to me. You can tell this by the number of times I posted telling you that this doesn't apply to me and asking why you kept pointing it at me.


leroy wrote:ok, he might not be a dishonest person in the general sense, but at least sometimes your friend lies, agree?


Uhhhh? Whaaa?

Sorry Leroy, how do you know my friend lies?

Did you ask him or.... did I just tell you that, as in, I am the source of your information for that.... so do I agree? /scratchy head emoticon sorely lacking

Um yes, I agree with what I told you before and you just repeated at me.



leroy wrote:with this I mean that he willingly provided incorrect information, when he could have had the option to say the truth.


Seems a pathetic attempt to wedge your half-baked nonsense back into the discussion.

Given that I used the example of my friend to rebut your inane claims, it's funny how you ignored all that and simply repeated the mantra.

No chap, I will use my examples to exemplify what I want to say. Get your own pathologically lying friends!



leroy wrote:and sure, the same is true with any other human being. there is nothing personal against your fried.


What are you nattering about? All you've done is repeat what I told you initially, minus all the complicated bits where I explain the relevance of my anecdote about my friend and why it presents a serious problem for your overly simplified nonsense, and you've just ignored it all so you can repeat exactly what I told you is clearly rubbish.

I am beginning to expect that this is normal, Leroy?

I would very strongly recommend you try reading and processing what I write because I tend to be overly specific and overwhelmingly clear in what I say, so it's hard to ever accept that such repeated misreadings are authentic.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:37 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

Sparhafoc wrote:3rd sentence: Cite your quantitative source for this assertion regarding what 'many atheists' allegedly believe. Also, it's a non-sequitur: determinism doesn't mean 'believes peoples thoughts are pre-determined, but rather that every event and affair is a result of an antecedent event or affair. It's a really poor sentence that starts with an assertion you've made up and ends with, at best reading, a terminal miscomprehension of the charge you're attempting to lay.*


The hilarious thing about this is that dandan/leroy actually is a determinist (based on his definition of determinism; he believes in a creator that is able to know our future just based on knowing our past and present).

Sparhafoc wrote:So why is the notion of Creationist dishonesty back? Oh that's right, because you insist that I think Creationists are dishonest, and it doesn't matter whether I say the opposite, you're still more knowledgeable about me and my motivations than I am, having just 'met' me yesterday. :roll:


I keep telling dandan/leroy to get a refund on the mind reading classes. His mind reading skills are lacking.

Sparhafoc wrote:Any which way, I think someone needs to spend more time reading and yes, less time projecting! ;)


Reading comprehension is not something dandan/leroy is capable of doing.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:06 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1653Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Blunders that Atheist make all the time:

I think Leroy could seek to explain how his part of the conversation goes like this:

Sparhafoc: I have a friend who does X.
Leroy: Well, your friend does X, do you agree?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:24 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 62 of 75
 [ 1496 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests