Just another bible lie

Originally posted by sonhouse
And the same would apply to the theists using the same tactics which you have to agree also is happening with great frequency here.

1. Theists didn't start the thread.
2. So what? As soon as you lose your cool, your chances of changing your opponent's mind vanish--assuming that your goal was even to change your opponent's mind in the first place (see previous post). It's not fair, but it's the way it is.

Originally posted by wittywonka
See the problem with that logic is that as soon as you acknowledge that your posts have absolutely no chance of changing your opponent's mind, then your only remaining motive for posting at all must be selfish: either to make yourself feel good, or to make your opponent feel bad, which is just another (repulsive, I might add) way to make yourself feel goo ...[text shortened]... f convincing someone else of a certain opinion but rather simply as a means to an end in itself.

either to make yourself feel good, or to make your opponent feel bad,

actually, mainly neither. It is mainly to make everyone else feel better by me putting the record straight yet again so that other people don't have to. There is just so much wrong with what he says!

Originally posted by humy

either to make yourself feel good, or to make your opponent feel bad,

actually, mainly neither. It is mainly to make everyone else feel better by me putting the record straight yet again so that other people don't have to. There is just so much wrong with what he says!

Do you think insulting your opponent enhances the benefit that your setting the record straight provides to everyone else?

I'll just speak for myself, but I don't think it adds any value to the debate whatsoever.

Originally posted by wittywonka
1. Theists didn't start the thread.
2. So what? As soon as you lose your cool, your chances of changing your opponent's mind vanish--assuming that your goal was even to change your opponent's mind in the first place (see previous post). It's not fair, but it's the way it is.

As soon as you lose your cool, your chances of changing your opponent's mind vanish

You just don't get it do you! We all KNOW the chances of changing our opponent's mind in this case ( RJHinds ) vanished a very long time ago well before he came to these forums when he chose to self-delude himself that his religion must be totally right and everyone that disagree with his wildly delusional religion even in the slightest must be wrong.
He also already decided he will stubbornly forever not debate or listen to any reason or logic from others because clearly, from his arrogant condescending tone, he believes he is more intelligent that all of us including you and I and even knows better about science than us scientists (even through he has repeatedly demonstrated how little he understands of it ) and is even more intelligent than Einstein because Einstein didn't agree with his religion. Thus we are obviously NOT TRYING to change his mind about anything because we have already figured out from his posts that it would be totally futile to try for he is beyond help and, unlike the rest of us, will never learn anything new. The person you really should be criticising for being condescending his him for he is both condescending and the initializer for the condescending talk in these forums -in other words, he started it! Because he is asking for it!

I really completely fail to see how you really cannot blame us to keep pointing out how stupid he is when he pretends to be more intelligent and know better than all the rest of us! -inevitable, that counter-attack talk will come across as condescending and perhaps it is for I am not saying it isn't but, the fact remains, it is also just stating the truth for he IS a moron!

Originally posted by humy

"He started it!"

Really? That's your justification?

"It's inevitable that counter-attack talk will come across as condescending..."

No it's not inevitable. State that he does not understand the science he claims to understand. Demonstrate that his logic is fallacious and that yours is sound. Then move on. Don't devolve into calling him a "moron" and comparing all religious believers to Nazis and terrorists.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Do you think insulting your opponent enhances the benefit that your setting the record straight provides to everyone else?

I'll just speak for myself, but I don't think it adds any value to the debate whatsoever.

Do you think insulting your opponent enhances the benefit that your setting the record straight provides to everyone else?

When the opponent is really asking for it, yes. The goal in this case is not to insult him (which clearly doesn't work anyway ) but to make other people happier by setting the record straight.

I'll just speak for myself, but I don't think it adds any value to the debate whatsoever.

It adds the truth. If that is not adding "value" to the debate, I don't know what does.

Originally posted by wittywonka
[b]"He started it!"

Really? That's your justification?

"It's inevitable that counter-attack talk will come across as condescending..."

No it's not inevitable. State that he does not understand the science he claims to understand. Demonstrate that his logic is fallacious and that yours is sound. Then move on. Don't devolve into calling him a "moron" and comparing all religious believers to Nazis and terrorists.[/b]

State that he does not understand the science he claims to understand. Demonstrate that his logic is fallacious and that yours is sound.

Already tried that, didn't work.

Then move on.

Already tried that, didn't work. He just repeats his same condescending crap. You are obviously unfamiliar with his unusual silly tactics.

Don't devolve into calling him a "moron" and comparing all religious believers to Nazis and terrorists.

Why not? I should! Both the Nazis and virtually all terrorists had.have religions beliefs of one sort or another and once you have one absurd belief, that is very dangerous because it makes it easier for you to have other absurd beliefs such as those of the Nazis and terrorists that in their minds justify their atrocities. With all else kept equal, if you magically remove/removed religion without a war, you will/would put a stop to much of those atrocities.

Originally posted by humy

"The goal in this case is...to make other people happier by setting the record straight.

Calling him a "moron" and comparing all religious believers to Nazis and terrorists do not make me happier (whether it makes others happier, I leave to you) and certainly do not aid in "setting the record straight."

"Already tried that, didn't work. He just repeats his same condescending crap."

Then actually move on. Quit indulging him. Start a new thread about something else that's interesting. If you've clearly demonstrated the fallacy of his logic, then it will be self-apparent to future patrons of this thread.

"Both the Nazis and virtually all terrorists have religions beliefs..."

That many Nazis were Christians and that those responsible for the 9/11 attacks were Muslims implies neither that many Christians were Nazis nor that many Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There are decent theists in the world, just as there are indecent atheists.

Originally posted by wittywonka
[b]"The goal in this case is...to make other people happier by setting the record straight.

Calling him a "moron" and comparing all religious believers to Nazis and terrorists do not make me happier (whether it makes others happier, I leave to you) and certainly do not aid in "setting the record straight."

"Already tried that, didn't work. He ...[text shortened]... or the 9/11 attacks. There are decent theists in the world, just as there are indecent atheists.

Quit indulging him.

Already done that and still doing that for I have installed software to block his posts so I just don't see his annoying moronic posts. The only reason why I on the rare occasion still respond is because I sometimes accidentally unblock his posts by clicking on the wrong bit and then see them and then just find it too hard to resist putting the record straight.

If you've clearly demonstrated the fallacy of his logic, then it will be self-apparent to future patrons of this thread

Both I and many others have done that many times -doesn't stop him or make him learn anything new because he doesn't want to learn anything new. He just continuous endlessly with his moronic post unabated.

Do you agree with everything he says or do you recognize that many of the things he asserts in his posts are logically flawed with false inferences?
-Surely the latter! Surely you MUST be far more intelligent than him only in small part because I note you make some logically correct inferences while he rarely does! (this isn't an attempt at flattery because most people are far more intelligent than him! ) This is only a part of the reason why I currently think it unlikely that I ever will call you a moron! (and you don't seem to be condescending -that helps a lot! )

That many Nazis were Christians and that those responsible for the 9/11 attacks were Muslims implies neither that many Christians were Nazis nor that many Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

correct but, the fact still remains, if all else is kept equal, if such religious beliefs where magically deleted out, there would then be less atrocities -read by previous argument. Therefore, it would be a good thing if people abandoned their religions (preferably along with any other absurd beliefs that are just part of the same package, of course, else the practical benefit may be minimal ) . With all else being equal, if every one was atheist, there would likely be far less atrocities.

The Nazis were theists. That does not mean that being theist equates with being morally bad but it does mean that, contrary to what many theists claim, being theist does not equate with being morally good. But it is also just one of the many bits of empirical evidence out of many that support the hypothesis that religion, along with other irrational beliefs such as other superstitions, Nazism, and hard line communism, encourages atrocities. People should base their beliefs purely on evidence and reason and not faith nor what they want to be true nor purely on mere hearsay of some authority (religious or not ) unless that authority also bases their beliefs on just evidence/reason else they will be deluded.

Humy is right here.

RJHinds are constantly insulting others. That mean that he allows us to insult him.
Why should we be friendly toward someone who doesn't want to have friends?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Humy is right here.

RJHinds are constantly insulting others. That mean that he allows us to insult him.
Why should we be friendly toward someone who doesn't want to have friends?

I add to that: hypothetically, if he changed his ways and stopped being insulting condescending, I, and I bet most others, would respond by stop insulting him. At the moment, our insults are generally in response to his and we are merely responding in kind.

Originally posted by humy

"Both I and many others have done that many times--doesn't stop him or make him learn anything new because he doesn't want to learn anything new."

Again, though, if you're convinced that you've made your case as clearly as possible and he still chooses not to accept your position, then you have no reason to continue to post, especially if your posts devolve into insults. And if you've made your case as clearly as possible to him, then you've also made it as clearly as possible to others reading the thread, given that they haven't directly communicated any questions or concerns about your position.

"Do you agree with everything he says or do you recognize that many of the things he asserts in his posts are logically flawed with false inferences?"

I imagine that his denial of the science behind the Theory of Evolution, which I personally take as a valid and empirically well-substantiated theory, implies an inherent inconsistency in his metaphysical world view, given that he likely (as you note) makes use of the scientific method, directly or indirectly, in many other facets of his life.

"If such religious beliefs where magically deleted out, there would then be less atrocities...The Nazis were theists. That does not mean that being theist equates with being morally bad but it does mean that, contrary to what many theists claim, being theist does not equate with being morally good. But it is also just one of the many bits of empirical evidence out of many that support the hypothesis that religion, along with other irrational beliefs such as other superstitions, Nazism, and hard line communism, encourages atrocities."

I'll be the first to concede that being a theist does not equate with being morally good, and the atrocities you cite are good examples of why not. But as you note, it's a two-sided coin. There are plenty of remarkable, moral people in the world who cite a religion as a source of inspiration for their work.

Originally posted by humy
I add to that: hypothetically, if he changed his ways and stopped being insulting condescending, I, and I bet most others, would respond by stop insulting him. At the moment, our insults are generally in response to his and we are merely responding in kind.

Hypothetically, yes, well...

When I started I was very friendly to him. I reached out my hand. It doesn't take long before the insults was delivered from him. So I gave up. He seems to enjoy to be targeted, he likes his martyr role. Nothing more to it.

But hypothetically he would be treated nicely if he changed his ways. All he has to do is to declare peace.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That mean that he allows us to insult him.

Surely there's also an atheistic grounding for the ideal of "turning the other cheek"? 😉

Seriously though, if you believe you can convince him to accept your position, then insults will make it less likely he will want to do so. If you believe you can't, then posting anything at all is a waste of time and energy. It's that simple.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Seriously though, if you believe you can convince him to accept your position, then insults will make it less likely he will want to do so. If you believe you can't, then posting anything at all is a waste of time and energy. It's that simple.

I tried. I failed.

I don't have any wanting to convince him wrong. He can have any ideas possible that doesn't hear anyone. But I don't accept to be insulted time after time. When he want to be socially functional, then we will have no problems. It's that simple.