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.
Bias is irrelevant. That is in fact an Ad Hom fallacy that you are pulling. The validity of the case is what counts, even if a person is biased.
The problem with bias is that it can cause leading the evidence, rather than following it. It's what debate, discussion and peer -review is all about. Just appealing to bias (which you suspect might stick equally) rather than the case made is fallacious and an attempt to scrape a draw when you didn't actually make a sound case. Or so I would invite the Browsers to see for themselves.
Still, all you are saying is "I'm right because it makes sense to me".
Last edited by OzzyRules; 11-23-2018 at 06:59 AM..
ozzy is not trained in the sciences so he not using precise language. He is using the words "fundamental theist". what he is saying is that atheism and theism do have the same personality types.
the opposition's claim "we don't have fundymental-think-types". what that means is "list the traits of a fundamentalist and atheism doesn't have them."
conclusion:
ozzy's claim :atheism and theism both have the same personality types in them is more valid than the anti-religious millymental sect of atheism claims that "atheism does not have the same personality types".
either they really just don't understand the topic or they are intentionally not addressing what ozzy is saying. yes, atheism doesn't have fundamentals, that is a word implying theism. but to claim atheism doesn't have fundamental think types is like saying russian's don't have "love" because its not spelled "love". its just sillyness.
to limit the notion that ozzy is talking about to the word "fundemental" and we can't address what he is actually saying intellectual dishonesty. they went so far as to say that when we expand the notion to what it really means "atheism and theism have the same personality types mixed in" to call that a straw man.
Not to tell ozzy that he is not being precise enough in his wording for the sole purpose of selling atheism is mean and one of the reason I will never be a anti-religious socialist. they, like fascist theism, are dangerous to liberty and freedom.
this discussion proves just how far they will go? or maybe that just how far they can go?
ozzy is not trained in the sciences so he not using precise language. He is using the words "fundamental theist". what he is saying is that atheism and theism do have the same personality types.
the opposition's claim "we don't have fundymental-think-types". what that means is "list the traits of a fundamentalist and atheism doesn't have them."
conclusion:
ozzy's claim :atheism and theism both have the same personality types in them is more valid than the anti-religious millymental sect of atheism claims that "atheism does not have the same personality types".
either they really just don't understand the topic or they are intentionally not addressing what ozzy is saying. yes, atheism doesn't have fundamentals, that is a word implying theism. but to claim atheism doesn't have fundamental think types is like saying russian's don't have "love" because its not spelled "love". its just sillyness.
to limit the notion that ozzy is talking about to the word "fundemental" and we can't address what he is actually saying intellectual dishonesty. they went so far as to say that when we expand the notion to what it really means "atheism and theism have the same personality types mixed in" to call that a straw man.
Not to tell ozzy that he is not being precise enough in his wording for the sole purpose of selling atheism is mean and one of the reason I will never be a anti-religious socialist. they, like fascist theism, are dangerous to liberty and freedom.
this discussion proves just how far they will go? or maybe that just how far they can go?
I think fundamentalism is a good word for describing it.
as if there are no scientists after Darwin who are also believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
There have been some discussions about this in the past when Fundamentalist religion was trying to claim scientific credibility. The stats (despite their attempts to fiddle them) seemed to indicate (as i recall) that it was about 15% god believer/religious in science.
But the work they did was through science - not through religion. And I believe that the scientific work done by muslims was during the most enlightened, tolerant and scientifically advanced period in its' history (1), after which a wave of religious -based fundamentalism swept that all away.
You are missing the point. Before Darwin, there was no other explanation but Goddunnit. Darwin was the first to come up with a explanation that did not require an intelligent creator. After that science was not locked into a god as the default -theory anymore.
Don't let this happen to the US. You are on the edge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Gods, plural. They were not all Christians. You will find most of them were also men. And if you ask the relevance of them being men, then you have found the problem with your argument.
So in this day and age, one cannot become a scientists and a believer at the same time?
How about you not try to avoid the question and attempt to answer it?
Because that means you getting away with avoiding the initial point. I do not play 'chase the Christian arguments', where Christians avoid what has been said, only to come back with the same old refuted arguments.
Before Darwin, there was no other explanation but Goddunnit. Darwin was the first to come up with a explanation that did not require an intelligent creator. After that science was not locked into a god as the default -theory anymore.
Darwin came up with a HYPOTHESIS. It was NOT an explanation.
Darwin came up with a HYPOTHESIS. It was NOT an explanation.
Whatever. Unlike the bible "explanation," it made sense.
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.
