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.
No. You are at best dishonest, because not giving theist free ammunition is a legitimate tactic, and at worst lying because your quotemining out of context has been corrected several times, but you persist. That is lying.
That comes as close to an outright admission that Arach is NOT lying. There is no secret you see this forum as a contest/battle between your atheism and the mainstream religious theists with your constant reference to win/lose outcomes. Some of us are legitimately here to discuss, explain, defend, and present our views without regard to any contest of wills or battle of ideas. Clearly, you have a serious agenda that drives your participation and your unwillingness to entertain or credit other viewpoints. You have apparently revealed as much to Arach privately and he keeps reminding you of it publicly whenever you present your objective facade. Give it up, Arq. You have been exposed.
That comes as close to an outright admission that Arach is NOT lying. There is no secret you see this forum as a contest/battle between your atheism and the mainstream religious theists with your constant reference to win/lose outcomes. Some of us are legitimately here to discuss, explain, defend, and present our views without regard to any contest of wills or battle of ideas. Clearly, you have a serious agenda that drives your participation and your unwillingness to entertain or credit other viewpoints. You have apparently revealed as much to Arach privately and he keeps reminding you of it publicly whenever you present your objective facade. Give it up, Arq. You have been exposed.
I will forgive your ignorance. Let me explain. The point was related to why (if it doesn't matter to the religion debate (1) atheists bother to contest the first -cause argument. Because if we just conceded the (invalid) first cause claim it would be used as 'ammunition' by religious apologists who do not see a difference between a sorta -god and their own particular god.
Get it now?
Arach simply ignores the context and uses it as a stick to bash atheism with and that is why he is dishonest and disreputable, and so are you if you thumb him up. Only ignorance can excuse him or you. I suggest you take it.
(1) it also is the origin of the 'gets nowhere' quote he uses and before that 'springboard (to the Bible)' all of which he uses ignorantly or dishonestly.
No. You are at best dishonest, because not giving theist free ammunition is a legitimate tactic, and at worst lying because your quotemining out of context has been corrected several times, but you persist. That is lying.
Thank you ... exactly what I have been saying the whole time. And if you keep saying it I will have have no problem with it.
Just say it a lot .. . "I am against using science and letting some evidence in for some beliefs because its gives theist ammo to use against us. It makes atheism harder to sell." In your opinion. I would be all in.
If you think its free ammo, then your position is not as sound as you think it is trans. I have no trouble talking about what the "free ammo" is and how it actually shows they are are partly wrong. But the fact that you used the term "free ammunition" is exactly what i am talking about.
"Not giving them ammo is a legitimate tactic". trans ...there are like three lines there. and when I pluck that part out it holds the meaning of the post. I am not quote mining trans, when you used those phrases it is the meaning of the post. I address what the whole post is saying.
You, avoid talking about your true purpose here. I think thats what theist do. They worry about giving "ammo" to another belief. Atheist are better than that.
I think better of atheist. we have a more sound way of thinking than faith and we can take them (fundy theist) straight on. Whos cares if people believing some thing more complex trans? Thats what the science supports and you always say you follow science. but "free ammo" is not follow science, its following a faith based belief.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-13-2021 at 06:16 PM..
I will forgive your ignorance. Let me explain. The point was related to why (if it doesn't matter to the religion debate (1) atheists bother to contest the first -cause argument. Because if we just conceded the (invalid) first cause claim it would be used as 'ammunition' by religious apologists who do not see a difference between a sorta -god and their own particular god.
Get it now?
Arach simply ignores the context and uses it as a stick to bash atheism with and that is why he is dishonest and disreputable, and so are you if you thumb him up. Only ignorance can excuse him or you. I suggest you take it.
(1) it also is the origin of the 'gets nowhere' quote he uses and before that 'springboard (to the Bible)' all of which he uses ignorantly or dishonestly.
Wrong. we are not limited to first cause only. In fact, first cause has nothing to do with the argument at all.
We are talking when you say talking about the possibility that god (non deity) and a living system are same thing "gets us nowhere". You had to push to get comparing science, out of any textbook none the less, used to form a belief omitted from the conversation.
The fact that you use "sort-a-god" is another tactic you use. You ignore the science, well side with getting it stopped at least (and you know its more than that so you know I am right), then say we are wrong because its sorta god.
That is not quote mining, it represents the meaning of your post.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-13-2021 at 06:48 PM..
I know I should ignore all that, but It's always going to look like I have no reply. I'm going to leave this irritating (to everyone) and pointless argument other than saying you sorta get it Arach but then go off at a tangent dragging in loads of other stuff, mostly also nonsense.
I'm going to end it there and you can do your 'running and hiding' accusations. Have fun.
I know I should ignore all that, but It's always going to look like I have no reply. I'm going to leave this irritating (to everyone) and pointless argument other than saying you sorta get it Arach but then go off at a tangent dragging in loads of other stuff, mostly also nonsense.
I'm going to end it there and you can do your 'running and hiding' accusations. Have fun.
Trans ...I totally get it. I am not abused, recovering, or mental. well, any less than some here anyway. So I am not buying into the dishonest political approach.
I totally get it. I draw the line at "heel boy" because we are fighting religion.
You know its pointless because I know for you its about "stop religion in the united states" first. You willfully misrepresent any belief that you feel gives the "enemy "ammo" to form a belief.
I don't partly get your tactic, I totally get what you are doing. ... its not honest and it doesn't rely on science and/or evidence. It rely's on what you want to be real.
I just say/repeat it often. When there are plausible beliefs say "I reject that evidence because I don't want to give any theist any ammo.". Or "I want pantheism stopped because I am fighting religion by minimizing all god claims so the enemy can't have ammo." AT least its honest at that point.
I would be all in with ya.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-14-2021 at 08:01 AM..
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.
I will forgive your ignorance. Let me explain. The point was related to why (if it doesn't matter to the religion debate (1) atheists bother to contest the first -cause argument. Because if we just conceded the (invalid) first cause claim it would be used as 'ammunition' by religious apologists who do not see a difference between a sorta -god and their own particular god.
