Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Because anyone who actually paid attention will note you're trying to force me to accede YOUR view as MY starting point, which, by definition, is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Ignoring your blatant cherry picking and red herrings, coupled with strawmen, you don't really have a leg to stand on. Any time you selectively interpret evidence to fit your bias or simply refuse to accept the burden of proof, you are debating dishonestly. You've been called on it many times and not just by me. The fact that you persist in pretending like you're in the right is just trolling.
For I begin to understand now why science and religion debates shape up the way do. Far from being backed up by fact where questions of history are concerned, many critical points in science are simply assumed rather than proven.
Good lord, is this rich. I can't believe you posted this, even though you have been repeatedly trying to defend a religious position using selective scientific evidence, but apparently when science becomes too exclusive to support fundamentalist doctrine, it becomes merely unproven and assumed somehow. We'll ignore that you are probably refusing to accept scientific premises either because you lack the understanding of them or you willfully ignore their foundations.
In any case, since the discussion directly compares and contrasts religious faith-based assertions with more logical, scientific-based assertions, you have very boorishly decided not to provide any proof or support for the religious side of things, despite actively 'testing the evidence against it'. The underlying assumption is that they require no proof or are self-evident, and yet somehow science must be found suspect by virtue of... whatever.
This makes it bizarre that you claim to be level-headed in this discussion when you are passively defending a side that has zero defense in the discussion at hand. Simply attempting to obfuscate things and undermine the opposition isn't debating; it's trolling.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Ignoring your blatant cherry picking and red herrings, coupled with strawmen, you don't really have a leg to stand on. Any time you selectively interpret evidence to fit your bias or simply refuse to accept the burden of proof, you are debating dishonestly. You've been called on it many times and not just by me. The fact that you persist in pretending like you're in the right is just trolling.Good lord, is this rich. I can't believe you posted this, even though you have been repeatedly trying to defend a religious position using selective scientific evidence, but apparently when science becomes too exclusive to support fundamentalist doctrine, it becomes merely unproven and assumed somehow. We'll ignore that you are probably refusing to accept scientific premises either because you lack the understanding of them or you willfully ignore their foundations.
In any case, since the discussion directly compares and contrasts religious faith-based assertions with more logical, scientific-based assertions, you have very boorishly decided not to provide any proof or support for the religious side of things, despite actively 'testing the evidence against it'. The underlying assumption is that they require no proof or are self-evident, and yet somehow science must be found suspect by virtue of... whatever.
This makes it bizarre that you claim to be level-headed in this discussion when you are passively defending a side that has zero defense in the discussion at hand. Simply attempting to obfuscate things and undermine the opposition isn't debating; it's trolling.
I suggest putting BWR on ignore. That's what I did!
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Simply attempting to obfuscate things and undermine the opposition isn't debating; it's trolling.
Indeed?
You demonstrate how to do that remarkably well for most of the following thread, then, I must say:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=592809&pagenumber=1
Don't even have to go farther than your first post before you begin, either ...
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I think this thread needs more commas ...
What multiple of five would I get if I went through your responses there and applied your above definition to them, I wonder?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Thank you... I thank you for the discussion to this point... I begin to understand now why... only religion... was wrong. I was genuinely surprised...Nice to meet a man, frankly, who... thinks... I'll spend some more time this week investigating...
No problem, glad I could help out with your confusion.
You can PM me too; I'll be happy to sort out any other religious/secular confusions you had 👆
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Indeed?You demonstrate how to do that remarkably well for most of the following thread, then, I must say:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=592809&pagenumber=1
Don't even have to go farther than your first post before you begin, either ...
What multiple of five would I get if I went through your responses there and applied your above definition to them, I wonder?
Time for a drinking game recap!
[list][*] Uses a large block quote or Youtube video to emphasize a point he can't articulate in plain English. Check
[*] Applies a double standard of proof for religious arguments. Check
[*] Misunderstands the value of debating fairly. Check
[*] Cherry picks a large valid post only to focus on something small and ultimately unrelated. Super Check
[*] If he references more than three KMC threads using bare URLs, upend the entire bottle. Almost
[*] If he mentions the anonymous millions reading his thread and awed by his arguments, also upend the bottle. Miss
[*] If he addresses a point directly without any of the above, you have drank too much. Stop.[/list]
Drink Count: 3
Originally posted by Robtard
Noah wouldn't have had a choice (there goes free will) since it was a direct command form God.Makes you wonder why God cared though in saving anyone/any creature, considering God made humanity and all the creatures of the earth out magic and arguably could have done so again.
Very true, but why would god want to destroy in the first place? I thought god was the great creator, not destroyer.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Time for a drinking game recap![list][*] Uses a large block quote or Youtube video to emphasize a point he can't articulate in plain English. [b]Check
[*] Applies a double standard of proof for religious arguments. Check
[*] Misunderstands the value of debating fairly. Check
[*] Cherry picks a large valid post only to focus on something small and ultimately unrelated. Super Check
[*] If he references more than three KMC threads using bare URLs, upend the entire bottle. Almost
[*] If he mentions the anonymous millions reading his thread and awed by his arguments, also upend the bottle. Miss
[*] If he addresses a point directly without any of the above, you have drank too much. Stop.[/list]Drink Count: 3
[/B]
I fear you're going to need a new liver by the time this is over.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Time for a drinking game recap![list][*] Uses a large block quote or Youtube video to emphasize a point he can't articulate in plain English. [b]Check
[*] Applies a double standard of proof for religious arguments. Check
[*] Misunderstands the value of debating fairly. Check
[*] Cherry picks a large valid post only to focus on something small and ultimately unrelated. Super Check
[*] If he references more than three KMC threads using bare URLs, upend the entire bottle. Almost
[*] If he mentions the anonymous millions reading his thread and awed by his arguments, also upend the bottle. Miss
[*] If he addresses a point directly without any of the above, you have drank too much. Stop.[/list]Drink Count: 3
[/B]
3 bottles downed already. drunk
Originally posted by Robtard
Oh, you got me in a typo 👆"Obey me or die" isn't much of a choice, now is it?
The consequence of disobedience is not pleasant in your scenario, but it is still a choice.
Compare to those 3 youths that went against the King's will and got put into a furnace, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
There the choice was essentially "die" or "die", from your perspective, no?
But by choosing to obey God, they lived.