Search results

What I was attempting to say is that someone's view in that respect is not because they are an atheist, which is about what they don't believe, it is because of something else which they take a positive position on. For example, I argue against Xians all of the time. However, I readily admit...

gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I have to chuckle at that. Yes, I do get a wild hair up my ass when people use terms to misrepresent and marginalize their position on a subject. I just responded to someone else in a quite long post that discussed my reasons for trying to agree and adhere to definitions if a discussion is...

I saw it. I hope that you understand why the fact that Chris White is a bible thumper that believes crazy shit himself in no way invalidates any of the arguments that he can make against the ancient alien hypothesis. That was the only reason I linked to the explanation about ad hominem. It is...

I don't know if he has changed or added new evidence since last time I read his work but arguing that someone might be right just because it's possible they could be is not really an argument. I will watch the podcast sometime this weekend. I have been at work a lot and with hockey playoffs, I...

Typically, atheist is a term that is used as an accusation against the godless heathens. The only thing that atheists agree on is that they don't believe in a god or gods. Atheist says nothing about what a person DOES believe. To self-identify as an atheist is typically only as a response to...

NAU, I have to say, although you and I have disagreed, you have never been disagreeable. You take criticism very well and it is refreshing to see that people can strongly argue against your position yet you have never really acted like you took anything personally. Great to have you on this forum.

Description of Ad Hominem Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person...

Actually he is quite correct. Do you accept or reject the god hypothesis? There are only two positions you can have, either you accept the claim of a god/gods or you don't. A theist says, "I think there is a thing that exists that we call god." This makes theism a position on the positive...

He is entitled to believe he is the messiah and claim that there's an afterlife and I'm entitled to point out where he fails when applying logic. Please don't come here and lecture me trying to say that anyone can post some bullshit belief on a public forum and expect to not get ridiculed. I...

Bullshit. There is absolutely no requirement to respect anyone's belief. Respect is earned not an imperative. Many beliefs are undeserving of respect and in reality deserve contempt. Tell me why I should respect any and all beliefs? Do you respect the beliefs of suicide bombers? How about...

Why do you want to discount the obvious like food and oxygen? Would ATP be a better answer for you?

Nope. It's all pillow fights and grab ass. 'neer, why the fuck do you have to mess with my fantasies?

We hear all of the time that there are plenty of reasons to believe, yet when actually pressed to provide those reasons, people tend to come up short. Beef responded to the only reason that was offered. I think your criticism is unjustified unless you or someone else wants to provide OTHER...

Yea, but women's locker rooms make up for all that....

I pointed out your equivocation in post 55 yet you continued to argue and misuse the word 'evolve.' If you intend it to have meaning outside of biology when we are discussing things that are biological, and it should be clear that is how your interlocutor is using it, it is your responsibility...

I believe the equivocation is purposeful. He intends to distort the meaning, which is why I won't engage anymore. It's an insidious and dishonest tactic.

Actually you asked a question about whether evolution would be pointless if everything didn't have consciousness. I pointed out that things evolve whether conscious or not. You may not think you're playing games but misusing terminology to suit your position is game playing IMO. Without a...

Whether you agree or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you are correct based on our 'current understanding' and you would be wrong in this case. That is of course unless you change the meaning of the word evolve, which is what I suspect you are doing in a quite loose manner...

Correct. Populations evolve. Individuals have virtually the same genetic information they had when they were born. My mind has developed, it has matured. It has not evolved.