Yep, you are right, i am just mad at myself for wasting 12 pages on these idiots. I am trying to do better and not allow myself to get into senseless arguments like that where you can not convince a lunatic one way or another, especially because i become frustrated while arguing with a person who is 100% locked into their beliefs, but it is a slow process for me, and i still find myself wallowing in shit once in a while.
History Channel documentary debunks all 9/11 conspiracy theories, 1 by 1
- Thread starter Hello
- Start date
Yep, you are right, i am just mad at myself for wasting 12 pages on these idiots. I am trying to do better and not allow myself to get into senseless arguments like that where you can not convince a lunatic one way or another, especially because i become frustrated while arguing with a person who is 100% locked into their beliefs, but it is a slow process for me, and i still find myself wallowing in shit once in a while.
Gayfly, you obviously miss the irony that the "creationist" side of your cartoon exactly fits that stupid teapot analogy you hold so dear.
No way can one conclude something about the origin of the universe with a circular argument about a fictional teapot.
No way can one conclude something about the origin of the universe with a circular argument about a fictional teapot.
Quote from Gayfly1:
People can cling to their religious beliefs all they want. As an atheist, I find it difficult to swallow. Even so, their beliefs are their own. However, I take exception when they try to stuff their religious beliefs with their versions of "science" and when they try to discredit legitimate science with agenda-driven pseudo-science that supports their religious beliefs. That's when we start taking backward steps. And in that way, they are not all that different from the truthers.
This little item is more sad than it is funny:
Sorry for deviating from the specific subject matter your thread. I just wanted to make my point.
Explain how the media totally missed what would be the story of the century.
Quote from RealityAnalyst:
You people are ignoring the evidence of Thermite explosive substance
You are ignoring the fact that Collapse of WTC7 would be impossible if it weren't for controlled demolition
You are ignoring Arrested Mossad agents on 9/11 who were videotaping it in advanced set up cameras
You are ignoring countless of eyewitness reports of bomb explosions prior to collapse on multiple levels
You are ignoring HUGE inconsistencies in multiple government officials, such as Cheney ordering army Jets to stand down.
Basically what I am saying that you people are complete idiots and some of you know the truth but you are paid shills to protect AIPAC and Neocons.
It must kill some of you inside that the truth doesn't want to die, that people like me keep pointing out the truth
Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy illustrates the fallacy of unsupported strong beliefs rather than having anything to do with the origin of the universe. It's about the flaw of reasoning in the belief of something because you can't disprove it rather than because you can support it. I'm sorry you missed that point. I thought it was obvious.
And I think when you start second-guessing recognized experts in their fields on the basis of "common sense findings" supported by D-List agenda-driven sources, that's when you find yourself in goofball territory. Not unlike the truthers.
No, you missed the point. Russell's article containing his flawed teapot analogy was titled "Is There a God?" which absolutely does have to do with the origin of the universe.
You also missed the point that Russell's teapot is not necessarily unfalsifiable unless it DOES exist. Which may have something to do with why the article was commissioned but not published.
Russell was an atheist with an agenda and his flawed analogy has been overblown by atheists and God-haters to either falsely "disprove" the existence of God or at least argue in favor God's non-existence as you have done.
Just because an "expert" says something, it's not necessarily sound. That's more flawed thinking. You really ought to try thinking for yourself for a change.
You also missed the point that Russell's teapot is not necessarily unfalsifiable unless it DOES exist. Which may have something to do with why the article was commissioned but not published.
Russell was an atheist with an agenda and his flawed analogy has been overblown by atheists and God-haters to either falsely "disprove" the existence of God or at least argue in favor God's non-existence as you have done.
Just because an "expert" says something, it's not necessarily sound. That's more flawed thinking. You really ought to try thinking for yourself for a change.
