|
Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life (pg. 30)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dykes_on_Jay |
| how is non god today? preach to me. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
I didn't expect you to back up your bull anyway. :) |
What is there to back up, against? Do you honestly think that there was merit to your original arguments, in the first place? When you can barely demonstrate an understanding of what I am arguing (my thesis: your rhetoric is flawed on many levels, in part because it places a premium on strategy above that of substance) and counter with an unrelated thesis of your own (your counter-thesis: atheism is the most best, most wonderful thing ever devised by man and it's the only topic worth discussing because without it the world seems meaningless), what is there to discuss?
I'm considering two likely possibilities, the first being that I lack the capacity to adequately make points that are easily understood. The second possibility is that you do not possess either ability or willingness to adequately demonstrate an understanding of what is being argued, in the first place. Why should I waste my time when you perpetually misconstrue the points I make?
Let's assume, however, that my metaphorical approach to this argument is too cumbersome to be utilized. Let me make it very plain for you (as in all three of you) what I am arguing:
- Your logic resembles that of fundamentalist theists. Even though it rests on a safe assumption that there is no proof for the existence of God, the conclusions and prescriptions following that assumption resemble those of fanatic evangelicals.
(Example: Blanket statements about Muslims being responsible for terror is equivalent to evangelical sentiments about homosexuality equating with pederasty.)
[Even if this is not an argument used in this thread, it is one that has been used, in the past; you know... the tens of threads concerning atheism, needlessly littering this forum.]
- Your rhetoric closely resembles that of cultists. Its vocabulary and conversational reference points are restricted to very narrow interpretations of information, married very closely to your philosophical beliefs, that are based on blatant misrepresentations of history, facts, and statistics. It erroneously conflates religion with causation as it completely ignores many outside factors that could be more fairly weighed, equally. Consequently, it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish common ground fundamental to any productive debate.
- Your arguments have very little intellectual integrity or honesty with which to formulate agreements that both parties involved in a debate would utilize to engage in realistic fact-finding.
- Your arguments are predominately reinforced by needless repetition of what has already been said; often of what has already been accepted as either a valid point or dismissed through logical deconstruction. It is not possible to have a conversation that moves forward when it is bogged down in needless or irrelevant reiterations of what has already been stated; and either taken into account or completely disproved.
- Your arguments make use, often unintentionally, of multiple logical fallacies. The fact that you accuse others of this is rather clear projection, on your part.
(Example:
| quote: | Originally posted by de+
Why don't you attack peoples' belief systems? There are some very bad and dangerous beliefs out there. Why should belief be spared from attack? What is it about belief that makes it immune to counter arguments? The only reason why people believe their own beliefs should not be attacked is because they have no defense for them. If there were a good reason to believe, there would be a good argument in defense; one that people could accept. |
This not only poses a contradiction, in that the issuer does not want his beliefs held to the same account - specifically because he is not religious - but, given the context of this discussion, poses a Tu Quoke fallacy, as well.)
- The goals of your arguments are detrimental and untenable. While they are often presented as well-meaning they minimize, if not disregard, historical evidence disproving their viability and humanity.
- Your rhetorical approach closely resembles that of agitation propaganda as it focuses heavily on examples of inequity to the exclusion of information that mitigate their potency. It exaggerates and repeats these examples. It utilizes them to depict religious people in an unflattering light. When there are ample facts to support your general thesis, that do not require embellishment in order to sustain their potency, such embellishment is still indulged in on a level that makes any conversation untenable.
- Your rhetoric is mired by tactics. You change the subject, utilize straw-men, and water down points that you've never demonstrated a clear understanding of, in the first place.
Example:
| quote: | Originally posted by de+
Because most religious people don't get to put up with religion, ironically. Someone who never went to church in their life or read the Bible could hold public office as long as they stuck the label "Christian" on themselves. Someone who isn't even outspoken about their atheism (although admits to being one) on the other hand gets at least an automatic 50% reduction in the chances of them being elected.
This thread though has steered down an odd path of the "me victim!" complex, claims of out of context Hitchens'Harris quotes. Some inane rambling about fictional dystopian nonsense as if it were even relevant and wrapped it up with a "you guys are too serious" resignation that is oh so typical of someone who has run out of things to say. |
It's not that anyone has run out of things to say. The substance of your argumenta, however, leads nowhere. There's nothing left to say in the face of rather clear dishonesty and inadequacy, on your part. I could never fully develop what I was trying to articulate with my fictional example because you kept taking things out of context instead of actually seeking to understand them.
Even though I may have been guilty of reaching, trying to articulate my own views, there is little point in continuing a conversation with someone who clearly indulges in the persistent patterns of bull I've outlined, above. |
|
|
| Mattsanity. |
| this thread has gone triple platinum |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mattsanity.
this thread has gone triple platinum |
Where the hell have you been? I thought you'd be all over the thread in MD about Christian Trance, the moment it was posted. |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
What is there to back up, against? Do you honestly think that there was merit to your original arguments, in the first place? When you can barely demonstrate an understanding of what I am arguing (my thesis: your rhetoric is flawed on many levels, in part because it places a premium on strategy above that of substance) and counter with an unrelated thesis of your own (your counter-thesis: atheism is the most best, most wonderful thing ever devised by man and it's the only topic worth discussing because without it the world seems meaningless), what is there to discuss?
I'm considering two likely possibilities, the first being that I lack the capacity to adequately make points that are easily understood. The second possibility is that you do not possess either ability or willingness to adequately demonstrate an understanding of what is being argued, in the first place. Why should I waste my time when you perpetually misconstrue the points I make?
Let's assume, however, that my metaphorical approach to this argument is too cumbersome to be utilized. Let me make it very plain for you (as in all three of you) what I am arguing:
- Your logic resembles that of fundamentalist theists. Even though it rests on a safe assumption that there is no proof for the existence of God, the conclusions and prescriptions following that assumption resemble those of fanatic evangelicals.
(Example: Blanket statements about Muslims being responsible for terror is equivalent to evangelical sentiments about homosexuality equating with pederasty.)
[Even if this is not an argument used in this thread, it is one that has been used, in the past; you know... the tens of threads concerning atheism, needlessly littering this forum.]
- Your rhetoric closely resembles that of cultists. Its vocabulary and conversational reference points are restricted to very narrow interpretations of information, married very closely to your philosophical beliefs, that are based on blatant misrepresentations of history, facts, and statistics. It erroneously conflates religion with causation as it completely ignores many outside factors that could be more fairly weighed, equally. Consequently, it is difficult, if not impossible, to establish common ground fundamental to any productive debate.
- Your arguments have very little intellectual integrity or honesty with which to formulate agreements that both parties involved in a debate would utilize to engage in realistic fact-finding.
- Your arguments are predominately reinforced by needless repetition of what has already been said; often of what has already been accepted as either a valid point or dismissed through logical deconstruction. It is not possible to have a conversation that moves forward when it is bogged down in needless or irrelevant reiterations of what has already been stated; and either taken into account or completely disproved.
- Your arguments make use, often unintentionally, of multiple logical fallacies. The fact that you accuse others of this is rather clear projection, on your part.
(Example:
This not only poses a contradiction, in that the issuer does not want his beliefs held to the same account - specifically because he is not religious - but, given the context of this discussion, poses a Tu Quoke fallacy, as well.)
- The goals of your arguments are detrimental and untenable. While they are often presented as well-meaning they minimize, if not disregard, historical evidence disproving their viability and humanity.
- Your rhetorical approach closely resembles that of agitation propaganda as it focuses heavily on examples of inequity to the exclusion of information that mitigate their potency. It exaggerates and repeats these examples. It utilizes them to depict religious people in an unflattering light. When there are ample facts to support your general thesis, that do not require embellishment in order to sustain their potency, such embellishment is still indulged in on a level that makes any conversation untenable.
- Your rhetoric is mired by tactics. You change the subject, utilize straw-men, and water down points that you've never demonstrated a clear understanding of, in the first place.
Example:
It's not that anyone has run out of things to say. The substance of your argumenta, however, leads nowhere. There's nothing left to say in the face of rather clear dishonesty and inadequacy, on your part. I could never fully develop what I was trying to articulate with my fictional example because you kept taking things out of context instead of actually seeking to understand them.
Even though I may have been guilty of reaching, trying to articulate my own views, there is little point in continuing a conversation with someone who clearly indulges in the persistent patterns of bull I've outlined, above. |
I have nothing more to say. You win. Good job Eddie |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Good job, Eddie! |
|
|
| Spam |
| I love when Eddie lays the rhetorical smack-down. |
|
|
| Ghost Raver |
| The meaning of life is finding lost forums you haven't visited in a long time just to see what's up. |
|
|
| Znack |
Ok I changed my mind :)
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
What is there to back up, against? Do you honestly think that there was merit to your original arguments, in the first place? When you can barely demonstrate an understanding of what I am arguing (my thesis: your rhetoric is flawed on many levels, in part because it places a premium on strategy above that of substance) and counter with an unrelated thesis of your own (your counter-thesis: atheism is the most best, most wonderful thing ever devised by man and it's the only topic worth discussing because without it the world seems meaningless), what is there to discuss? |
If that's what you think my thesis is then clearly you're the one who doesn't understand or read anything. Quit projecting your shortcomings onto me, and develop your own brain, not that of the alarmist abstract you read that molds your brain.
| quote: | | I'm considering two likely possibilities, the first being that I lack the capacity to adequately make points that are easily understood. The second possibility is that you do not possess either ability or willingness to adequately demonstrate an understanding of what is being argued, in the first place. Why should I waste my time when you perpetually misconstrue the points I make? |
Third and realistic possibility: You made your point, it still doesn't hold up, No one is buying the dystopian/end of freedom hypothetical strawman that you've thrown up. You're the only one here who is making the claim that anyone seeks a world without unreasonable dogmatism, and even if such a world exists, there's no evidence that says it's the construct of despotism.
| quote: | | Let's assume, however, that my metaphorical approach to this argument is too cumbersome to be utilized. Let me make it very plain for you (as in all three of you) what I am arguing: |
Yawn*, grand standing.
| quote: | | - Your arguments make use, often unintentionally, of multiple logical fallacies. The fact that you accuse others of this is rather clear projection, on your part. |
Really? You haven't offered one single piece of physical or theoretical evidence for your assertions, it's simply to say, "If you do X then Y and Z occur and the alphabet is ruined". No one is asking for X to happen to begin with, you made it up because you can't think of one reason not to challenge ignorance. |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
It's not that anyone has run out of things to say. The substance of your argumenta, however, leads nowhere. There's nothing left to say in the face of rather clear dishonesty and inadequacy, on your part. I could never fully develop what I was trying to articulate with my fictional example because you kept taking things out of context instead of actually seeking to understand them. |
Yes, you can't articulate your logic well no matter how many paragraphs you write about it. Perhaps it best you not work on articulating and instead work on reason and logic; I find those more convincing than speeches by sock puppets. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
Yes, you can't articulate your logic well no matter how many paragraphs you write about it. Perhaps it best you not work on articulating and instead work on reason and logic; I find those more convincing than speeches by sock puppets. |
What reason and logic have you offered that holds up? Honestly, if you had any, you'd have been able to disprove my arguments before you made your concession. As it is, you rightly understood your arguments were inconsistent with anything reasonable or logical. This is just a pathetic attempt to save your ego from the consequences of your crooked assumptions
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
I have nothing more to say. You win. Good job Eddie |
In recanting your surrender, you've only offered more conjecture that I can scarcely be bothered taking the time to dissect. You've basically told me, again, that you disagreed with me and articulated to what extent you disagree with me. You've yet to demonstrate how your disagreement holds any water.
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
... one single piece of physical or theoretical evidence ... |
Ffffffffffffft! :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
Physical evidence? Like what? A brain-scan that proves you have an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex? And theoretical evidence? That poses a bit of a semantic contradiction. Given that you begin your post by trying to impeach my "articulation," you can scarcely articulate a cogent and meaningful thought, yourself. You don't even understand that, in order for ones logic to be understood, it must be articulated.
As for evidence - I provided ing examples, you git!
Again: Kindly, off! |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
What reason and logic have you offered that holds up? Honestly, if you had any, you'd have been able to disprove my arguments before you made your concession. As it is, you rightly understood your arguments were inconsistent with anything reasonable or logical. This is just a pathetic attempt to save your ego from the consequences of your crooked assumptions |
Once again, you're the one asserting atheists have this dystopian plan for the world by seeking to control people's thoughts, when not one single person made that argument. You have only presented abstract sci-fi bull to escape from the fact that you just love to disagree for the sake of it. You can't show how any atheist here is wrong about scrutinizing religion, so you just decide to put words in their mouths and argue against that.
| quote: | | Physical evidence? Like what? A brain-scan that proves you have an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex? And theoretical evidence? That poses a bit of a semantic contradiction. Given that you begin your post by trying to impeach my "articulation," you can scarcely articulate a cogent and meaningful thought, yourself. You don't even understand that, in order for ones logic to be understood, it must be articulated. |
More baseless personal attacks totally irrelevant to your lack of evidence. Honestly if you just want to grandstand and watch yourself argue, go buy a mirror and fancy yourself that. |
|
|
|
|
