Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I agree, that is what I said. That IS the typical scenario for most users. Just not you and at least 2 other users I can think of. The majority of users ARE able to reply to what I said. Usually quite consistently. Changing what I said into something I did not say is not "expanding" on it though. It is distorting it. And you do it with gusto and a fetid need to reply to anything BUT what I actually say.
Except you have not once ever rebutted a single argument I have made, let alone "crushed" it, but there is another rhetorical tool on display here that is worth noting since exposure of canard moves is of some utility. This tool you have of peppering "bait and switch" comments into your post that deflect from the core discussion. In this case your usual trope of "atheism is a religion" nonsense. Despite being roundly and wholly rebutted on it any number of times before, it is still your go to "bait and switch" dodge when you realize you are losing the main conversation you are in. So you throw it out in the hope it will deflect conversation from one of your failures, on to another.
All what evidence though? You have not presented any. As I schooled you in the previous pages of this thread, simply CALLING something evidence does not make it evidence. One has to qualify it as being evidence by showing how and why it should be considered so. As with your anecdotal "experiences of god" nonsense, you consistently fail to do this every, single, time.
And THAT is what I mean when I say there is no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning being offered to support the claims a non-human intelligent and intentional agency exists. I have NEVER meant that no one is presenting things they CALL evidence. I DO mean that they are not presenting anything they have successfully qualified as being worthy of the term.
Then take that up with someone who makes that move. Since I do not make that move, it has nothing to do with me and you are basically just trying to fill out your post with content at this point, regardless of whether the content is relevant or not. My SOLE position is that I do not subscribe to, or accept, claims that are entirely devoid of all substantiation. There is nothing wrong with that move at all. Certainly nothing that YOU have shown anyway.
Sure thing. Just as soon as you get around to actually presenting any. As you have not done so yet, there is nothing to debate. And in fact your whole linguistic position on "god" leaves nothing TO be debated. There is not only no evidence there, there is no CONTENT there. There is no claim in your claim. You genuinely have not offered anything I have read (link me to anything you feel I may have missed) that has any content to it OTHER than merely calling "all of everything" with the word "god". That is a linguistic rhetorical move, with no actual content to debate, accept or rebut. There is nothing there.
Yes, thanks, Nozz, I had noticed that he loves to draw one on by a lot of baited claims or accusations, which is a nice rhetorical device for making us protest and then go on the defensive.
"Have you stopped beating your wife" IF you can make the point that a yes or no answer is actually misleading and requires further explanation, puts one in the position of defending an accusation when actually the person making the accusation has the burden of proof.
It is all part of the Rhetoric of making us defend. And that's an interesting line because it is related to the whole burden of proof which is on Theism but they would loke to be on the shoulders of atheism
That's why there is the constant beefing about us having no evidence (we don't need it - theism does as they are making the god -claim), they beef constantly about negative evidence, which is (quite often) powerful indirect evidence - which is not the same as "Invalid evidence" that Goldnrule tries to pass off as 'indirect'.
And the world and nature it works is all the Evidence we need for our position. To validate a god - claim you need something more.
We have done the Arguments from Consciousness, Abiogenesis and Cosmic origins, and they are ..not good enough to be even indirect evidence.
So Gldnrule tries to fiddle it by saying that it being the reason we are here validates the 'God' Label, as he knows he has nothing else.
And as I say, It's what he means (he says), but it isn't what I mean or indeed what anyone else I ever debated with means.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-07-2017 at 06:20 AM..
Of course there is the "testimony of BILLIONS".
If one personally adheres to a theology that provides for some God Entity, and billions do...that is certainly a personal testimony that they believe and perceive a God exists.
To say it is not is totally unreasonable and illogical.
Also...Pantheists make no more "linguistic move" assigning the title and referring to The Universe as "God"...that those that refer to George Washington as "President".
Yes...they both already have a name...but they possess attributes that merit the title. They are not being "renamed" or "relabled" to be "God" and "President", as you always falsely claim....the titles are added based upon merit that comports with the known meaning of the title.
Nozz showed you up with your Piles of Evidence: bad, invalid and non -evidence, and therefore to be struck and inadmissible as evidence; but you keep trying to peddle it to us, with that not very original trick 'Bad evidence is still "Evidence".
Keep going this is all good for showing up the dishonest rhetoric of theism.
We also did argument from President. It is a purely human concept - there is NO presidency intrinsically in nature, and to equate "God" with that trashes your argument - unless you have a lifetime solid existing Cosmic president that you can show with decent evidence - not a bunch of human conventions.
You haven't and can't otherwise you would be doing it without having to tell us us that Nature id God, or try to peddle some of the claims made about God (ignoring the rest as 'beliefs') that of course have to be the same.
It is, in a remarkable way, just like argument from Morality. That doesn't do anything to prove a god - claim either.
P.s and please Think before you consider arguing that God is eternal but presidents are elected. It is not the point, any more than God is creator of the universe but Santa just delivers toys. It will just waste my time and make you appear unable to reason logically.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-07-2017 at 06:24 AM..
The problem is noizze that; he has some valid points. Now rhetoric says that we don't need evidence so I have absolutely no power of rhetoric.
YOUR rhetoric might say you do not need evidence. Mine does. YMMV but at the heart of everything I think, and how I think it, is the rule that I do not subscribe to, or adopt, any claim or idea that is entirely devoid of substantiation.
That might irk the people who DO, but that is hardly my problem really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You have more power because you don't have to stick with observation and can use personal needs at will.
Not what I do no, you just made that up. Nothing I have said diverges from observation, and nothing I have said is based on personal needs. These are just two stock off the shelf accusations you like to make at people, regardless of whether they actually apply or not.
Basically once again you fall back into that rhetorical tool I mentioned earlier where you accuse people of things without any substance, citation or example to allow you to throw accusations without actually accusing them of anything substantive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
their is no reason for us to have to hold to the definition of a god as defined by a religious people 1000's of years ago.
When I discuss god with a theist, I tend to go with THEIR definition every time. So I am certainly not one to hold to any definition of god. I do have my own, which I offer in places where the theist will not offer their own. And SO FAR no theist has taken exception to the definition I use. They are happy that the way I define "god" accurately portrays what they believe exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
So your rhetoric says " ... hold to some bullship definition ..."
Yours might. Mine does not. As I said I go with THEIR definition when offered and mine only when not. So your rhetoric might be baffling people for sure, as you contrive to make everything vague and to write in a standard of English that few can parse, but it certainly is not a problem for me. Most people seem to have no trouble understanding what I say, why I say it, or on what basis. Aside from 2 or 3 outliers, the majority of which I suspect contrive willfully to pretend to fail to understand me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
That being a whole lot of very pretty writing that says basically nothing but that you have to hold to carefully chosen (by you and your personal needs) literal definition of words to limit a discussion of "how the universe works" to a discussion on "how you want the universe works."
Except that is not something I have ever done either, you just keep making things up. In fact I have never entered a conversation on this area of the forum related to "how the universe works", there is a science forum for that, so you genuinely are making stuff up about how I act or acted in such conversations. Because since we have not HAD such a conversation, anything you say about my conduct IN that conversation is entirely derived from your own fantasy.
The ONLY thing I have said to you about the universe is that it appears to exist, we appear to exist in it, we do not know how this came to be, but the current level of evidence that the explanation lies in an intentional agent is ZERO.
Not once.... literally NOT ONCE.... have you ever rebutted or challenged the content of that point/paragraph. Choosing instead of make up all kinds of things about me, and what I say, for you to attack instead. Yet my WHOLE position on this religion forum, and in religious discourse, is contained within that paragraph. Everything else, you made up by yourself.
And the only time I have insisted on sticking to literal meanings is when people either make up their own nonsense meaning for words, or when people like yourself hijack the thread on one topic to make it about a totally different topic. You then act like someone refusing to facilitate your thread hijack is somehow dodging or avoiding your points. That is however NOT SO. At all. Even a little bit. If you want to sell this weird "The ecosystem itself is a life" or whatever it is you are selling this week, then by all means find a thread or start a thread for that! You will not find me uninterested or non-responsive to it. If however you want to wholesale hijack a thread, like you did on the "Do you acknowledge the possibility of god" thread, and use my posts to facilitate your derail and hijack.... then you are on your own.
The problem is noizze that; he has some valid points. Now rhetoric says that we don't need evidence so I have absolutely no power of rhetoric. You have more power because you don't have to stick with observation and can use personal needs at will.
Where I disagree with him, and most certifiably your rants ... their is no reason for us to have to hold to the definition of a god as defined by a religious people 1000's of years ago. We might as well hold to their definition of what powers the sun too then.
So your rhetoric says " ... hold to some bullship definition ...", Like the sun is "combustion", then you deny anything that supports that bullship definition. Right powerful rhetoric you got there. Again, I point your resents post of awesomeness in rhetorical writing as evidence of the power of rhetoric. Average people that don;t know much more than accounting or lawyering might get baffled by the rhetorical bullships.
Now, evidence does say that anything we engage in the universe must be engaging in. We can talk about volume of space involved, but even a basic investigation points to a volume larger then you could claim. But that isn't rhetoric is it? its a fact.
In fact, with your biology background, it becomes quite clear that all you have is the second definition of rhetoric as support. That being a whole lot of very pretty writing that says basically nothing but that you have to hold to carefully chosen (by you and your personal needs) literal definition of words to limit a discussion of "how the universe works" to a discussion on "how you want the universe works."
all in all ... awesome rhetoric that any pastor would be proud of.
I would leave that to Nozz, (pre. ps. He fielded it well) but I dope ...Hope (a typo, I swear) to help here (since we have the glimmerings of a reconciliation, old son. )
Nozz and I and indeed all thinking atheists are willing to discuss ANY god -claim. It is generally Biblegod, and that is usually what is debated.
It is sometimes Agnostic -god, and that is a different argument. Bulma is the main proponent of Sortagod (of all religions or none) and this tends to be Cosmic origins and Order. Of course overwhelmingly these are Used by the religious to try to make "God" credible, which, when done, is the springboard to their particular personal god.
I may say that I think both Mystic and his disciple have Jesusgod (if not Biblegod) up their sleeves as the religious beliefs and stories keep on bobbing to the surface like a crap you thought you flushed away (theres Rhetoric, if you like ) and Pantheism (or a kind of modified Deism (1) is just used toi smuggle the "God" - label in, using some name -dropping as an appeal to Authority.
It's all a fraud, old mate, and you should take that on board. But you might set aside this beef with our side (which seems more a political beef you have) as it is only really with an extreme kind of atheist which does exist (but is NOT just the kind that speaks up) and I try to persuade them to drop the extreme methods, as it does more harm than good.
Matt Dillahunty now one of the top spokesbod for atheism was foremost is arguing against calling the religious stupid. They are not. but they are wrong on evidence and logic, and (if they ignore it when it is pointed out) irrational.
When they deconvert, they don't get Smarter; the simply give up Faith for Reason. And that is really all that the argument is about.
(1) is god the whole of the Cosmos or just Dark matter?)
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-07-2017 at 06:26 AM..
YOUR rhetoric might say you do not need evidence. Mine does. YMMV but at the heart of everything I think, and how I think it, is the rule that I do not subscribe to, or adopt, any claim or idea that is entirely devoid of substantiation.
That might irk the people who DO, but that is hardly my problem really.
Not what I do no, you just made that up. Nothing I have said diverges from observation, and nothing I have said is based on personal needs. These are just two stock off the shelf accusations you like to make at people, regardless of whether they actually apply or not.
Basically once again you fall back into that rhetorical tool I mentioned earlier where you accuse people of things without any substance, citation or example to allow you to throw accusations without actually accusing them of anything substantive.
When I discuss god with a theist, I tend to go with THEIR definition every time. So I am certainly not one to hold to any definition of god. I do have my own, which I offer in places where the theist will not offer their own. And SO FAR no theist has taken exception to the definition I use. They are happy that the way I define "god" accurately portrays what they believe exists.
Yours might. Mine does not. As I said I go with THEIR definition when offered and mine only when not. So your rhetoric might be baffling people for sure, as you contrive to make everything vague and to write in a standard of English that few can parse, but it certainly is not a problem for me. Most people seem to have no trouble understanding what I say, why I say it, or on what basis. Aside from 2 or 3 outliers, the majority of which I suspect contrive willfully to pretend to fail to understand me.
Except that is not something I have ever done either, you just keep making things up. In fact I have never entered a conversation on this area of the forum related to "how the universe works", there is a science forum for that, so you genuinely are making stuff up about how I act or acted in such conversations. Because since we have not HAD such a conversation, anything you say about my conduct IN that conversation is entirely derived from your own fantasy.
The ONLY thing I have said to you about the universe is that it appears to exist, we appear to exist in it, we do not know how this came to be, but the current level of evidence that the explanation lies in an intentional agent is ZERO.
Not once.... literally NOT ONCE.... have you ever rebutted or challenged the content of that point/paragraph. Choosing instead of make up all kinds of things about me, and what I say, for you to attack instead. Yet my WHOLE position on this religion forum, and in religious discourse, is contained within that paragraph. Everything else, you made up by yourself.
And the only time I have insisted on sticking to literal meanings is when people either make up their own nonsense meaning for words, or when people like yourself hijack the thread on one topic to make it about a totally different topic. You then act like someone refusing to facilitate your thread hijack is somehow dodging or avoiding your points. That is however NOT SO. At all. Even a little bit. If you want to sell this weird "The ecosystem itself is a life" or whatever it is you are selling this week, then by all means find a thread or start a thread for that! You will not find me uninterested or non-responsive to it. If however you want to wholesale hijack a thread, like you did on the "Do you acknowledge the possibility of god" thread, and use my posts to facilitate your derail and hijack.... then you are on your own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I would leave that to Nozz, (pre. ps. He fielded it well) but I dope ...Hope (a typo, I swear) to help here (since we have the glimmerings of a reconciliation, old son. )
Nozz and I and indeed all thinking atheists are willing to discuss ANY god -claim. It is generally Biblegod, and that is usually what is debated.
It is sometimes Agnostic -god, and that is a different argument. Bulma is the main proponent of Sortagod (of all religions or none) and this tends to be Cosmic origins and Order. Of course overwhelmingly these are Used by the religious to try to make "God" credible, which, when done, is the springboard to their particular personal god.
I may say that I think both Mystic and his disciple have Jesusgod (if not Biblegod) up their sleeves as the religious beliefs and stories keep on bobbing to the surface like a crap you thought you flushed away (theres Rhetoric, if you like ) and Pantheism (or a kind of modified Deism (1) is just used toi smuggle the "God" - label in, using some name -dropping as an appeal to Authority.
It's all a fraud, old mate, and you should take that on board. But you might set aside this beef with our side (which seems more a political beef you have) as it is only really with an extreme kind of atheist which does exist (but is NOT just the kind that speaks up) and I try to persuade them to drop the extreme methods, as it does more harm than good.
Matt Dillahunty now one of the top spokesbod for atheism was foremost is arguing against calling the religious stupid. They are not. but they are wrong on evidence and logic, and (if they ignore it when it is pointed out) irrational.
When they deconvert, they don't get Smarter; the simply give up Faith for Reason. And that is really all that the argument is about.
(1) is god the whole of the Cosmos or just Dark matter?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
I am well aware of the things you CALL evidence, but as with your anecdotes of "experiences of god" I have explained at length why it does not qualify. You ignoring the reasons why I reject claims of evidence is NOT the same as me ignoring the evidence.
And you do not have the "testimony of billions" either. You are just making that up. Subscription to a religion is not the same thing as a testimony, and quite a lot of that testimony is contradictory. For every testimony to the divinity of Jesus for example, you have counter testimony from Muslims saying the opposite.
So whatever the worth of the testimony is at the end of the day, you would need to start by establishing how much of it you actually have, because your argumentum ad populum fallacy is not on the statistically firm ground you pretend.
Once again, not what I said no. I said your perception is a linguistic move and there is nothing there TO evidence. No that there is no evidence for it. Do try to keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
You know repeating an unsubstantiated claim but placing "of course" before it does not strengthen the claim, right?
Perhaps THEY do, but YOU do not. I have asked you numerous times to adumbrate the differences and you have failed to do so. Taking "all of everything" and simply calling it "god" is a linguistic move and you have not laid out any other substantive distinctions you are making. So as I said the problem is not your lack of evidence, it is your lack of something TO evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
I think such a discussion would be off topic, because even though you see it as related to rhetoric, that is just well -poisoning.
Discussion of the evidence is a useful discussion but off topic; discussion of the methods of arguing is on topic.
I'm disinclined to engage with you on either as all I have seen of your evidence is what you project onto us - Zero, Zilch, Nada.
And on the other side all you ever do is semantic fiddling. As I have said before there is a stage where discussion is simply mud wrestling a hog. It's better just to point to the folk with a stick:
"Hog; mud."
Which I would rather do and will continue to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
The problem is noizze that; he has some valid points. Now rhetoric says that we don't need evidence so I have absolutely no power of rhetoric. You have more power because you don't have to stick with observation and can use personal needs at will.
Where I disagree with him, and most certifiably your rants ... their is no reason for us to have to hold to the definition of a god as defined by a religious people 1000's of years ago. We might as well hold to their definition of what powers the sun too then.
So your rhetoric says " ... hold to some bullship definition ...", Like the sun is "combustion", then you deny anything that supports that bullship definition. Right powerful rhetoric you got there. Again, I point your resents post of awesomeness in rhetorical writing as evidence of the power of rhetoric. Average people that don;t know much more than accounting or lawyering might get baffled by the rhetorical bullships.
Now, evidence does say that anything we engage in the universe must be engaging in. We can talk about volume of space involved, but even a basic investigation points to a volume larger then you could claim. But that isn't rhetoric is it? its a fact.
In fact, with your biology background, it becomes quite clear that all you have is the second definition of rhetoric as support. That being a whole lot of very pretty writing that says basically nothing but that you have to hold to carefully chosen (by you and your personal needs) literal definition of words to limit a discussion of "how the universe works" to a discussion on "how you want the universe works."
all in all ... awesome rhetoric that any pastor would be proud of.
Thinking people see right through these bogus attempts to ignore facts.
The only "rhetorical trick" is carried out by the LOBBUNE Sect of the Atheist Religion.
They MUST cherry-pick the known expert definition of "G-O-D", and excise the meanings that crush their illogical position.
They KNOW "G-O-D" is defined outside of Religious Deities...that this isn't some "semantic trick", and many of the greatest minds to ever exist have applied the Non Religious Deity meaning of "G-O-D"....and that the Pantheist concept and perception of "G-O-D" has been around for even longer than the manifestations of God they cling to and insist be the only considered. Arach calls it here. He sees what is being done. So do others.
The self admitted Anti-Religion militancy of many within the LOBBUNE Sect of Atheism...has closed their minds, clouded their sense of logic and reason...and left them with nothing but the "linguistic tricks" and "semantic fiddling" that only THEY do, but project onto others.
I explain; you obfuscate. I doubt that anyone is fooled now,
I agree...very few are fooled. Most are intelligent, wise, perceptive, and intuitive.
That is why there are so few Atheists compared to Theists. Especially the LOBBUNE sect of the Atheist Religion...y'all take a flawed "No Evidence" premise and illogically make determinations off of that.
Appeal to numbers? Then why are there more religionists than pantheists?
The facts of the "statistics" are not an "appeal". Just how it is.
YOU were making an appeal, talking about who was "fooled" and who wasn't...I simply put that in proper perspective for ya.
Theism Baby! It RULES! Always has...Always will.
Thinking people see right through these bogus attempts to ignore facts.
Thinking people see right through these bogus attempts to make accusations without substance. Because every time you accuse me of something.... like "ignoring facts".... you consistently fail EVERY time to actually point to an example of me doing what you accuse me of. This rhetorical move is one you at least share with your cheerleader and cohort, but I doubt anyone is buying it outside your mutual back slapping attempts at it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
) and Pantheism (or a kind of modified Deism (1) is just used toi smuggle the "God" - label in, using some name -dropping as an appeal to Authority.
