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.
Ah, but you are making the common miistake of those with an Agenda and looking for evidence to support it - cherry picking.
You pick the bits that fit (both sides are shouting) and ignore the bits that don't - even though I was shaking them in your face just now - we have the FACTS on our side, and they can only fiddle, deny or go on the attack.
And if they do that - clearly they DON'T understand, and we do.
In fact you know this already as you don't agree with any of the theist argument. Just the possible god idea which you appear to actually believe, and a beef with atheism, other than the kind that bleats; 'pardon me for existing' or, better still, says nothing at all.
Not for public consumption for once, old son, (since even less than Goldenrule are you a worry to goddlessness) but for you. As you could do much better for yourself.
Ah, but you are making the common miistake of those with an Agenda and looking for evidence to support it - cherry picking.
You pick the bits that fit (both sides are shouting) and ignore the bits that don't - even though I was shaking them in your face just now - we have the FACTS on our side, and they can only fiddle, deny or go on the attack.
And if they do that - clearly they DON'T understand, and we do.
In fact you know this already as you don't agree with any of the theist argument. Just the possible god idea which you appear to actually believe, and a beef with atheism, other than the kind that bleats; 'pardon me for existing' or, better still, says nothing at all.
Not for public consumption for once, old son, (since even less than Goldenrule are you a worry to goddlessness) but for you. As you could do much better for yourself.
man you are afraid.
I cherry pick relevant facts? Your expression of belief is based on your brain state. There are a limited number of brain states. We can call them personality types. Those types express beliefs. It is not the other way around.
I can predict how a person will express a belief by just knowing a little bit of the personality and some relevant events in their lives. tell me ware that statement is wrong?
tell me that is cherry picking?
I know you understand when i say ... I have a beef with atheist, not atheism. I have a beef with theists, not theism. I have a beef with scientist not science. I had a beef with a general contractor, not construction.
I say you need to insert "doubt" in my way of thinking. It is dangerous to your type of thinking. Its uses just to much commonsense to maintain an anti-religious frame of reference.
evidence of your fear.
You need to insert a "lie" when you say I believe in god. Why do you need to do that?
I only need to point out that people are people first. Then we can talk about beliefs being used as weapons.
Afraid.. of what? I have been up against some of the best on the boards, and you, sunshine, are nowhere near.
Of the facts or the Other side? Hardly, because you take issue with those as well.
No - the remark is purely Rhetoric (1) - the case the other side has can be sidelined by accusing him of arguing because he is afraid of something. It is not new, but is still effective - for now.
What did I respond to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
yeah, I agree.
both sides shouting, "you don't understand."
its like being caught between two groups of 13 year old's shouting at each other. Basically twisted up stories with a sprinkling of real facts.
Ok, I understand that you don't care for the shouting on each side. So stay out of it. Nobody is sending you call -up papers. But you just seem to love posting and posting about a debate you imply you dislike, not because of the debate but (you claim) of the individuals involved in it. YOU mentioned 'real facts'. I pointed out that we have the 'facts' -not an equal 'sprinking' on either side -WE have the facts. That is what you ignored, and when I pointed it out to you, you sidestepped..
What do you hope to accomplish by having a go at particular atheists (and perhaps theists) when the debate is about a subject of discussion? And what do you hope to achieve by making false accusations, other than in hopes to discredit them with others? It's either that you are simply letting your own prejudices overrule you thinking, or it is trying to score what points you can as part of a campaign about outspoken atheism. which I gather is related to a dislike of liberalism amd nothing to do with either Facts or shouting.
I am of course giving you the benefit of doubt. I Thought you had a beef with atheism of the outspoken kind, in which case, you were ignoring the fact that on reason and evidence we are right, and it would be wrong NOT to speak out. To ignore that is to pick arguments and ignore others - Cherry -picking.
As I say I'm giving you all benefit of doubt, in NOT calling a beef with particular atheists chery -picking and accepting that this was your Beef all along.
But when you look at it closer, for sure you don't mean Individual atheists! You must mean a particular Kind of atheist - the outspoken ones, and indeed there is past evidence that's what you mean, with a wretched (and boneheaded, old chum ) attempt to label it "Fundy" (2...this post is written with relevance to Rhetoic, and foopnote 2, in particular ).
In other words, it is the same thing - a beef with atheism of the outspoken kind - dressed up and presented as something else. Well, I concede I had to think that through, but it looks like you are employing an Rhetorical trick - evasion (of the point of who is right), slipperiness (in shifting your ground), and dishonesty ((because of use of Rhetorical tricks rather than straight discussion)
You have a chance to launder your cred. (in which case I can press you on your "God" belief), but it is on the line - and you can't say I never gave you a chance.
(1) to whit - ad hom. strawman.
(2) Which Others (No names) gleefully picked up and delighted in bashing us with, no matter how we argued the facts.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-12-2017 at 08:52 AM..
Afraid.. of what? I have been up against some of the best on the boards, and you, sunshine, are nowhere near.
Of the facts or the Other side? Hardly, because you take issue with those as well.
No - the remark is purely Rhetoric (1) - the case the other side has can be sidelined by accusing him of arguing because he is afraid of something. It is not new, but is still effective - for now.
What did I respond to?
Ok, I understand that you don't care for the shouting on each side. So stay out of it. Nobody is sending you call -up papers. But you just seem to love posting and posting about a debate you imply you dislike, not because of the debate but (you claim) of the individuals involved in it. YOU mentioned 'real facts'. I pointed out that we have the 'facts' -not an equal 'sprinking' on either side -WE have the facts. That is what you ignored, and when I pointed it out to you, you sidestepped..
What do you hope to accomplish by having a go at particular atheists (and perhaps theists) when the debate is about a subject of discussion? And what do you hope to achieve by making false accusations, other than in hopes to discredit them with others? It's either that you are simply letting your own prejudices overrule you thinking, or it is trying to score what points you can as part of a campaign about outspoken atheism. which I gather is related to a dislike of liberalism amd nothing to do with either Facts or shouting.
I am of course giving you the benefit of doubt. I Thought you had a beef with atheism of the outspoken kind, in which case, you were ignoring the fact that on reason and evidence we are right, and it would be wrong NOT to speak out. To ignore that is to pick arguments and ignore others - Cherry -picking.
As I say I'm giving you all benefit of doubt, in NOT calling a beef with particular atheists chery -picking and accepting that this was your Beef all along.
But when you look at it closer, for sure you don't mean Individual atheists! You must mean a particular Kind of atheist - the outspoken ones, and indeed there is past evidence that's what you mean, with a wretched (and boneheaded, old chum ) attempt to label it "Fundy" (2...this post is written with relevance to Rhetoic, and foopnote 2, in particular ).
In other words, it is the same thing - a beef with atheism of the outspoken kind - dressed up and presented as something else. Well, I concede I had to think that through, but it looks like you are employing an Rhetorical trick - evasion (of the point of who is right), slipperiness (in shifting your ground), and dishonesty ((because of use of Rhetorical tricks rather than straight discussion)
You have a chance to launder your cred. (in which case I can press you on your "God" belief), but it is on the line - and you can't say I never gave you a chance.
(1) to whit - ad hom. strawman.
(2) Which Others (No names) gleefully picked up and delighted in bashing us with, no matter how we argued the facts.
lmao. your right, you aint even close to me. that's is toooo funny, Giving you mean spirited people trouble and forcing you to be more precise in using science is the same thing as believing in god. Where did you learn that propaganda? thirties Europe?
That's why you whip out lies, you said I believe in god. That is flat out not true.
I am more correct in how to make predictions using how people will react based on personality type over belief statement.
thirdly, you base claims on atheism over observation, I don't make claims off of a belief statement, I use observation only.
I don't side with mean spirited people. I personally don't care what they believe until the killing starts. Then guys like you are cannon fodders.
I don't think I need to comment on the bulk of your post. I hardly need tell the readers what to think, but I concede that I could have misunderstood spme previous posts of yours. Do you or do you not consider that it is more likely than not that there is an intelligence behind the existence and organization of the cosmos.
If you say that you don't and it is more likely that it all came about through natural forces without intelligent direction, I'll hold up my hands and accept that you are an atheist.
You still haven't answered the question: do you subscribe to the probability of an Intelligence behind the cosmos and its' workings or do you prefer to view that it is unthinking physical processes?
The more you evade and bluster, the more you suggest that I was right - you are a believer is a sorta -god.
You still haven't answered the question: do you subscribe to the probability of an Intelligence behind the cosmos and its' workings or do you prefer to view that it is unthinking physical processes?
The more you evade and bluster, the more you suggest that I was right - you are a believer is a sorta -god.
your not being honest. I answered it directly. How do you answer a question that we don't know anything about? base it on a statement of belief like "lack belief"; thats a joke.
your sortagod is a marketing ploy, a personal opinion, your religion's "lack belief" god pitted against another childish omni god. Its a bumper sticker to add to the list.
You clearly demonstrate you answer to atheism. I don't. I state my belief and then the word that describes that conclusion, for communication reasons, is "Atheist".
Back to the start of the universe we go.
1) you answer based on your religion. I (arg) am anti-religion atheist .... so that means I must believe ... No intellect. thats it. Like them, you get off easy, I wish I didn't have to think. Just like them, we need to keep an eye on your religion being forced on others.
2) I answer based on observation.
It could have started from nothing.
It could have started from something.
I don't know what that something is. Based on what little we know I would say maybe we started from non life in a natural way or we started from life in a natural way, like"born".
If you base your answer on chemistry, physics, and biology, I say think what you want. You say, "think what you want as long as its anti religious.' That's fundamentally different. I am not a fundamentalist, that makes me different.
"intellect behind creation" whats that? like your mom and dad?
exactly what part don't you understand?
what did they do to you? what happened that you can't see such a simple conclusion? You haven't answered because you know, if you did, the gig is up.
The topic of this thread is The Power of Rhetoric in Religious Discussion?
It got derailed for a few pages with posts about Everything in the Universe (or World) being God. Now, a few posts have been deleted to keep the thread from veering off topic again. Just as I posted in another thread, you are free to believe anything you want. Don't drag threads off topic with posts like that any more. This thread is about rhetoric, not what constitutes God.
Sorry about that, Mensa. Maybe you should make this a No Goldie Zone. You are of course a Mensa member and will pick up my tips of how this chat is a dissection of Rhetoric in action. I also explain what I am doing as I go along for those Not members of Mensa.
Thus, on getting Arach here to be honest about his take on "God" depends a whole Bundle of Rhetoric.
Specifically to you and to Arach - if he says he credits the notion that the whole shebang works on unthinking physical laws he is indeed an "Atheist" and I will admit I was wrong. That is honest discussion and Non -Rhetoric.
If he says that he is crediting an intelligence directing the universe (which is "God" id anything is) he is an agnostic theist and I was right to say he is a God -believer, and he is being dishonest in order to simply Prove me wrong - Rhetoric!
And if he continues to evade the question, as in his post above, he is pretty much signalling that I was right and he was being dishonest just to prove me Wrong, whatever it took. Rhetoric.
It is pretty much standard procedure for those engaging in the kind of Rhetoric designed not so much to get the facts straight, but to trash the opposition, whatever it takes, and if the politicians have to stray not too far from the facts, it is because they know that Lying will come back to smack them round the chops.
Now I'm no expert of Trash -talk, and I don't know or really care whether Ol' Eusebius displayed a liking for Trashtalk, because it put him on an equal level (where arguing the facts put him at a disadvantage) or he just enjoyed it.
And this is where I invite the browsers to post their insights and experiences on TrashTalk, becaude it is so clearly allied to rhetoric, being a free area of bluster, accusation, braggingn and all the various ploys used to Win the Argument without actually having to win the argument.
"You know I'm right, you just don't want to admit it". This is a very familiar example, and while it could be employed by either side, it is more likely to be a Projection by the side that's losing because the winning side doesn't need it.
I may add some others.. "Y'all just wanna Sin" is a long -standing one which would be a joke - except that they Really believe it's a valid argument.
Of course Pseudo -logic is whole branch of Rhetoric, like pseudo science (we know the response is to take a science claim to the experts, don't peddle it to populace in hopes to persuade them that everything that science told them was wrong) But logic is open to all. The use of a logical construct designed to show that atheism cannot exist is long debunked because based on one or more logical fallacies - either an a priori god -claim or a strawman of what atheism actually claims to claim .
But that's for another time. This is about the trashtalk method.
Scoring cheap and irrelevant points for your side. Indeed this is a second or third fallback position for theist apologetics when they run out of arguments. Just like the sometimes run back to the Bunker "Who made everything, then?" And indeed Eusebius when pressured on Evolution, rushed back to 'You can't prove in fossil evidence how life got started". You will note that this has itself retreated from Abiogenesis is impossible (1) because I demonstrated that was an untenable claim. The Bunker Ploy is to retreat back to anything the other side can't prove (or they think he can't) and try to pin the whole debate on that.
That isn't in itself trashtalk, but becomes part of it in a one line snappit exchange that is what I think of as trashtalk - it doesn't need to be a swap of insults, though "starting a Fight" is also a handly ploy where one side has nothing, and they know they haven'.
That (or so I suggest) is why Sortagod agnostics get so rude so quickly - because they have NOTHING - not Bible, not heaven-linked morality; none of the usual 'evidences' of Theism, but a Faith in an intelligence that moves the universe. They may have realized that they can't use I/D or even 'First cause' though most regard that as a safe bet. So Starting a Fight' is all they got.
And I'll leave Arach's Post to lie and fester where it is - I only require for the third time a straight answer (not an evasive 'what is intelligence' - I already said a conscious direction of the cosmos/nature.) One more strike, and he's out .
(1) and No.. this is about Rhetoric not about Evolution.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-13-2017 at 06:25 AM..
I was reading an article on rhetorical devices. For those that might not know (or maybe it's just me ), rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
I began to wonder if perhaps the constant conflict here is not a differ in views, but a lack of tact when presenting views. From the atheist's perspective it seems that we're obviously right. And when we're obviously right, that makes others obviously wrong which means that they're ignorant. So, instead of dealing with a different view and a different lifestyle, we're dealing with ignorance. The thing many of us seem to fail to recognize is that who we too often view as our opposition likely has the same view of us.
Imagine if we all wrote with the intention of persuading instead of proving the other wrong? I would think we could have great discussions. A core principle of rhetoric is to attempt to understand your audiences position so that you can communicate your position effectively. Imagine if we all did this in each post? Imagine how many people who find the religion section to be a toxic zone would now be inclined to join in the conversation?
I wonder who would join in to test this theory? Thoughts? Opinions?
rhet·o·ric
ˈredərik/ noun
noun: rhetoric
the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
synonyms:oratory, eloquence, command of language, way with words "a form of rhetoric"
- language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.
"all we have from the opposition is empty rhetoric"
synonyms:bombast, turgidity, grandiloquence, magniloquence, pomposity, extravagant language, purple prose; wordiness, verbosity, prolixity; informalhot air; rarefustian
"empty rhetoric"
You only need rhetoric when you desire something from others. In a religious discussion, there should be no need for rhetoric fluff and exercises, unless one is attempting to recruit.
"Just the facts, ma'am/sir."
No matter how elaborate the packing, if it's dog poo it's dog poo.
As for the forum, June 7th said it best a while back when she stated some come here to get their arguing fix.
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.
of what? I have been up against some of the best on the boards, and you, sunshine, are nowhere near. 
You must mean a particular Kind of atheist - the outspoken ones, and indeed there is past evidence that's what you mean, with a wretched (and boneheaded, old chum 
) attempt to label it "Fundy" (2...this post is written with relevance to Rhetoic, and foopnote 2, in particular ). 
Trah -Talk.
. 
. 
), rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques.
