666...the Devils Moving Average

Quote from Doubter:

You really need to take a critical thinking course.

This is nothing but one big fallacious appeal to authority,
coupled with Ad Hominem attacks and strawmen.
axeman
______________________________________

Boy you got that right! All this appeal to the "higher authority" of critical thinking courses is really high.

Lay the teachings of the academic "critical thinkers" beside the teachings of Christ or the Talmud before any group of non-biased people and see which one wins. Next reveal the personal moral lives of each side of the teachers and see what the outcome is.
More...
Yes, axe's logic attacks would be very relevant if I was trying to prove that there was a God. But I am not.

The problem is that his own logic comes back on him when he tries to prove that there is not a God in light of current scientific evidence (double negatives and all!). He and the other three cannot come in any where near proving that the First Cause is not intelligent, esp. in light of current scientific findings.
 
GG,

Ive had this arguement many times. I finally came to the conclusion it is pointless to argue it with people. They will never look at reality: God and the Easter Bunny are one in the same.

It just seems that people NEED to believe in order to deal with everyday life. They must have something else or they simply can not go on.

Anyway only post Im going to make. Ignorance is bliss.
 
Quote from axeman:

Your asking me to prove a negative.

Can you prove im not god? NO.
Can you prove the earth DIDNT shoot out my butt last year? NO.

Do you even understand why asking someone to prove
a negative is so meaningless?

This is a typical theist reply.
They fail to understand where the burden of proof lies.
More...

I understand proving a negative. I understand that I am not doing that. It is you, by your wording, that is attempting to prove a negative. You instantly discard all possibilities so that you can insult anyone who does not believe as you do.
 
Quote from axeman:


"You then dismiss all references to the supernatural as authoritative as if you had exhaustively dealt with the subject."

Wrong again. I dismiss it because of a complete lack of evidence.
More...

“complete lack of evidence” – there you go again assuming that are an authority on the subject. By saying “complete”, you are saying there no examples of legitimate supernatural events even worthy of being investigated. Let me elaborate:

Do you have any idea whether or not Moses performed any miracles at the Exodus?
Right now Christianity is exploding (50 to 100 million) in Communist China and reports of miraculous healing are pouring out of the country?
Do you have any idea if the Navajo skinwalkers, Edgar Cayce, even Shirley MacClaine had no paranormal experiences?

You are dismissing eye witness accounts as “lack of evidence”. This would be unfair in a court of law and it’s unfair in this argument for you to assume yourself an authority so that you can glibly dismiss every report of the supernatural with COMPLETE lack of evidence.
If you think there’s a lack of evidence – fine. But don’t say COMPLETE lack of evidence as if you could verify that the billions of supernaturally occurring reports of miraculous events can be dismissed easily. Only the materialists dismiss eyewithness accounts so easily.
You simply do not know if the supernatural is true or not. Why don’t you word it that way instead of acting like you’re the William James of secular humanism?
 
Shoeshine,

Have you not learned anything during this thread?
I mean seriously.

How many times have you made this error?

How many different ways must I tell you that:

1) I AM NOT ASSERTING THE GOD DOESNT EXIST
2) NO ONE HAS TO PROVE A NEGATIVE, like god does NOT exist
3) NO ONE has to prove that the first cause is NOT intelligent,
because this is asking them to prove a negative.

If you ARE asserting that the first cause is intelligent
THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

If you ARE asserting that ID is a good model, then
the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

If you ARE asserting ANYTHING, then the
BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.


You are totally guilty of what stu has already pointed out.

You just continue to throw out the same old stuff, over
and over and over, no matter HOW MANY TIMES it
is shown to be flawed.

I can only conclude, what stu has already implied, and that
is that your REALLY ARE NOT INTERESTED in a debate
which you can learn anything from.

You are only interested in hit and run tactics, by posting
the same flawed arguments, and asking the atheists
to prove something is NOT true, which switched the
burden of proof to the person NOT asserting anything.

What is the point of discussing ANYTHING with someone
who continues to make these errors???

I just don't see it.

LEARN where the burden of proof lies, and then maybe
people will take you a little more seriously.

You are debating no better than the cult member theists
on the corner who immediately declare: YOU CANT PROVE
GOD **DOESNT** EXIST.

Yeah...no shit.... and you cant prove that the universe
didnt spawn out of a giant alien three headed unicorns SHIT droppings.

Saying that you cant prove something is NOT true,
**** IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS ***.

Do you not understand this? You CLAIM you do, and then
you make the VERY SAME ERROR in the next post!

What should I conclude from this????????????????????

peace

axeman





Quote from ShoeshineBoy:


Yes, axe's logic attacks would be very relevant if I was trying to prove that there was a God. But I am not.

The problem is that his own logic comes back on him when he tries to prove that there is not a God in light of current scientific evidence (double negatives and all!). He and the other three cannot come in any where near proving that the First Cause is not intelligent, esp. in light of current scientific findings.
More...
 
SB: "I understand proving a negative. I understand that I am not doing that."

And LATER: "He and the other three cannot come in any where near proving that the First Cause is not intelligent, "


Obviously you dont.
Caught red handed.


Where is the burden of proof SB???

Stop asking us to prove something is NOT something.
Either learn where the burden of proof lies, or don't bother starting another fallacious NON-debate.

peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



I understand proving a negative. I understand that I am not doing that. It is you, by your wording, that is attempting to prove a negative. You instantly discard all possibilities so that you can insult anyone who does not believe as you do.
More...
 
"there you go again assuming that are an authority on the subject"

Don't put words into my mouth.
I do NOT assume I am an authority, but I have done my homework.


You could easily end this by supplying us with
some real evidence of the supernatural, and you
could potentially get Randi's $1,000,000 as a prize
if you are able to demonstrate it.

Until then, I can only assume there is no evidence,
and that your are simply grand standing.

Please produce some, or drop your assertion that
the supernatural exists.

I await your extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims.


peace

axeman





Quote from ShoeshineBoy:



“complete lack of evidence” – there you go again assuming that are an authority on the subject. By saying “complete”, you are saying there no examples of legitimate supernatural events even worthy of being investigated. Let me elaborate:

Do you have any idea whether or not Moses performed any miracles at the Exodus?
Right now Christianity is exploding (50 to 100 million) in Communist China and reports of miraculous healing are pouring out of the country?
Do you have any idea if the Navajo skinwalkers, Edgar Cayce, even Shirley MacClaine had no paranormal experiences?

You are dismissing eye witness accounts as “lack of evidence”. This would be unfair in a court of law and it’s unfair in this argument for you to assume yourself an authority so that you can glibly dismiss every report of the supernatural with COMPLETE lack of evidence.
If you think there’s a lack of evidence – fine. But don’t say COMPLETE lack of evidence as if you could verify that the billions of supernaturally occurring reports of miraculous events can be dismissed easily. Only the materialists dismiss eyewithness accounts so easily.
You simply do not know if the supernatural is true or not. Why don’t you word it that way instead of acting like you’re the William James of secular humanism?
More...
 
"Yes, axe's logic attacks would be very relevant if I was trying to prove that there was a God. "


Sorry SB,

But claiming your not trying to prove god, does not let
you off the hook when you commit a fallacy.

"axe's logic attacks" still apply.


peace

axeman
 
"axe's logic attacks" still apply.


peace

axeman
_____________________________________________

Selectively as applied and judged by "axe" himself.
 
More empty assertions.
What else do the theists have to offer?

Mere statements without explanations.
Big surprise :D


peace

axeman






Quote from Doubter:

"axe's logic attacks" still apply.


peace

axeman
_____________________________________________

Selectively as applied and judged by "axe" himself.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top