"Faith" We ALL have it!

If you're a believer, looking for a debate or attempting to make a correction - this forum is just for you!

Re: "Faith" We ALL have it!

Postby Howdybud » Mon May 26, 2014 4:26 am

Dobbie has already disappeared like the Cheshire Cat.

You, dear EL, are getting really nasty and name calling sucks. If there is a moderator he should give you 60 lashes with a wet noodle (at least).

If you can't see by now that the evidence we all see that is material, is necessarily filtered through our presupposed faith before there is ever a chance to make decisions on what it means, well, I too am at a loss and repeating myself will do no good I'm sure.

If the new topic is boring, then ignore it.
Your' good at ignoring specified complexity and irreducible complexity,
so it won't be a hard thing for you to do.
You are well practiced.

Cheers!
Howdybud
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 12:25 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: "Faith" We ALL have it!

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Mon May 26, 2014 6:42 am

I'm nasty to evasive dishonest shits like you. You think you can come in here and be completely and utterly disruptive, dishonest, evasive, and expect to be treated nicely? Fuck you.

You said my science is limited. You said my epistemology is limited. Ok. What else should I use then? If you are going to critique me, tell me how to be better. What other methods, processes, and standards can I use to learn about your god? What is your epistemology? How can I learn about your god?

If you can't see by now that the evidence we all see that is material, is necessarily filtered through our presupposed faith before there is ever a chance to make decisions on what it means, well, I too am at a loss and repeating myself will do no good I'm sure.

That is simply not true. As I've said numerous times, I have no atheistic presupposition. I have no such faith. It's quite irritating when you keep repeating that I do. Some people do honestly start with an open mind, without presuppositions about whether a god exists or not, and then look at the evidence, and go where the evidence leads. Unlike you who assumes there is a god, and then contorts the evidence to fit his preconceived notions. I don't do that. It's quite irritating that you keep projecting your flaws onto me. Asshat.

Also: Either you purport to have reasons and justifications for belief in your god, or you have a presupposition - faith - that your god is real. Pick one and stick with it. Asshat.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: "Faith" We ALL have it!

Postby Howdybud » Tue May 27, 2014 1:45 pm

Quoting you EL as you vomit all over me,

"Bullshit, dishonest, Hypocrite or liar, Evasive dishonest hack, dishonest shits like you, Fuck you, Asshat."


You are ABUSIVE EL.

It is no surprise to me that you use a quote like the one you posted at one point, ("Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Jefferson) as an excuse to call me a shit, or launch a “fuck you” my way or ridicule me personally. Because something is "unintelligible" to you, doesn't mean its wrong. It might mean you're out of touch. What it certainly does not mean is that you get the right to be verbally abusive.

If you don’t like discussing issues with me in civility, it’s YOU that need to go away.
Don’t post any more ad hominem verbal abuse on any of my topics, AT ALL.
I don't care what Jefferson said, ridicule has no place in a discussion or debate here.
Howdybud
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 12:25 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: "Faith" We ALL have it!

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Tue May 27, 2014 5:14 pm

Ridicule has a place when discussion has failed. This discussion has failed, because you have failed to be an honest participant.

Also, I have not yet begun to ridicule you. I have merely called you out on your abuses. That is not ridicule. Calling you names - apt and appropriate names - is not always ridicule. I'm accusing you of flagrant dishonesty and being a shit. Ridicule would be when I start making fun of you, Jesus, and your beliefs for being utterly ridiculous, asinine, and childish, which I haven't done yet. There's a huge difference.

Answer the questions already. Stop being an evasive, dishonest shit.

Copy-pasted for your convenience:
Do you have a presupposition that the god of the Christian bible exists?

If not, do you have reasons for believing that the god of the Christian bible exists?

If yes, what are those reasons?

If those reasons include something other than doing proper statistical analysis on "material" evidence, including direct, indirect, and circumstantial "material" evidence, then what other kinds of reasons do you use? In other words, what is your epistemology? In other words, how is my science incomplete?

When someone (partially) bases their belief in the Christian god on the authenticity of some Christian biblical stories and prophesies, is this using material evidence and proper statistical analysis?

When someone asks for Jesus to show up in Times Square and perform some miracles, is that a different kind of evidence and reasoning than that purportedly use by people who saw Jesus two thousand years ago perform miracles?

When someone asks for Jesus to show up in Times Square and perform some miracles, is that a different kind of evidence and reasoning than that used by people who (partially) base their beliefs on the material stories of the material Christian bible about purported material people two thousand years ago seeing material miracles?

When I say that I approach the evidence with an open mind, with no presupposition for gods and no presupposition against gods, why are you unwilling to accept that? You say that I'm lying or in denial? Are you saying that most/all atheists are lying or in denial? What about people who know about the Christian biblical prophesies, and who are fervent religious believers, but for another god? Surely they are not dismissing your evidence because of a presupposition against god. Or would you argue that they have a presupposition against the Christian god? Does that mean that you don't have any evidence at all for your god because it all requires a presupposition as a starting point? Do you think that everyone who disagrees - including other religious people of other religions - are all liars or in denial? That would be convenient. Everyone who disagrees is (colloquially) insane, and so you don't have to take what they say seriously, eh?
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: "Faith" We ALL have it!

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Tue May 27, 2014 5:47 pm

Also, you don't know what "ad hom" means.

A non sequitur is a point or argument which does not address the earlier discussion, despite purporting to, implicitly or otherwise. It's not only not right, it is not even wrong. It fails to meet the criteria of being right or wrong because it does not address the earlier discussion. An ad hominem argument is a kind of non sequitur. An ad hominem argument is an attempt at argument by calling the other person a name to refute an unrelated point, or otherwise accusing the other speaker of negatives in order to refute an unrelated point point.

I have called you names, like "dishonest", and "shit". I have not purported to use these names as an argument against your points, implicitly or otherwise. In fact, I have made very clear arguments against many of your points, and demanded clarity on others. In addition to that, I have called you names, very apt names, in hopes that you will change your behavior out of shame, based on the hope that you can feel shame for being so dishonest.

Similar to the earlier post where I explain that not all name calling is ridicule, all naming calling is not ad hominem either.

You can stop being a dishonest shit, and I will then stop calling you a dishonest shit, as soon as you answer my questions.

PS
Now, instead of "ad hom", maybe you meant "poisoning the well".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Here, that may be an accurate assessment of my current tactics. Of course, poisoning the well refers only to a debate tactic that applies against an audience of a debate and not to either participant in the debate. It is my intent to clearly show your dishonesty, and for new people who come in and see this later to be well aware of your dishonesty, in order to help them not accept your points as readily. So, I guess the only question is whether it counts as "preemptive". Perhaps?
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Re: "Faith" We ALL have it!

Postby Howdybud » Tue May 27, 2014 6:17 pm

@El.

I asked you to cease and desist with the name calling.

You refused.

I am here to discuss issues with civility.
I fully expect that my views will be controversial here, I'm a Christian!
So I placed them in "Believer's Backlash" where anyone who opens the door, knows what to expect.

If my posts offend you because of my arguments, then you could have just not responded.
Dobbie got tired of me and bugged out. You could to!
I don't mind.

When you eliminate the abusive language from your posts I will un-foe you.
We can agree to disagree civilly, or we won't interact at all.
Howdybud
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 12:25 pm
Location: Kentucky

Re: "Faith" We ALL have it!

Postby EnlightenmentLiberal » Tue May 27, 2014 6:47 pm

I don't care about acting civilly when I'm faced with flagrant, repeated, willful dishonesty. You will be honest, and you will answer the questions, or there will be no conversion.

You need to get your priorities right. It is inappropriate to be civil to a bald-faced liar such as yourself. If you want respect and civility, earn it. Answer the questions.
EnlightenmentLiberal
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 10:32 am

Previous

Return to Believer's Backlash

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron