1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    16 Mar '12 22:10
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    You apparently have been hoodwinked by some of the religious community into
    believing the propaganda that everything they do is legit.



    See what happens when you have no objective way of settling disputes or arguing
    a point.

    Everything turns into a mindless mud slinging match.

    Logic reason and evidence are the way we test ideas against rea ...[text shortened]... you, continue to be a laughing stock, or engage in reasoned debates...

    The choice is yours.
    Unreasonable and irrational people can not be reasoned with, besides, most
    people like to laugh.
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Mar '12 00:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Unreasonable and irrational people can not be reasoned with, besides, most
    people like to laugh.
    "Unreasonable and irrational people can not be reasoned with, ... "

    That was my point, you are unreasonable and irrational and can't be reasoned with.

    "... besides, most people like to laugh."

    Um, probably... what the does that have to do with anything?

    I like to laugh, but that's irrelevant to whether or not you (or anyone else) is acting
    rationally and logically, or not.

    Humour is not the problem.
    The problem is that you will not engage in a reasoned and rational debate about anything.
    You simply state your opinions as fact, occasionally site some other like minded creationist
    whackjob as 'evidence', and insult anyone who disagrees with you.

    This, as I said, Is the cause the the number of (deserved) insults directed at you.
    If you want to engage in proper debate then embrace logic and reason (after first learning
    what they are and mean) and be prepared to have an open mind which means that you would
    be prepared to change it IF presented with a good enough argument and/or evidence.

    My mind is open because IF you did have reasonable proof of your god and presented it to me
    then I would change my opinion about the existence of your god.

    The same applies to every other subject and belief and piece of knowledge I hold.

    My entire philosophy and belief set is built on the idea that I and everyone else can be wrong and
    often are and thus any and all ideas and beliefs must be open to being questioned and tested.

    This is the principle and foundation of science.

    This is why your accusations that science and scientists are part of some great conspiracy and/or
    delusion to ignore or cover-up the 'truth' are so ridiculous and false.

    Taken as a whole science is THE most unbiased and open professions and field of endeavour EVER
    created by man. And is so by design.

    If someone were ever to devise a less biased and better method of investigating the reality we live
    in then science and scientists would adopt it.

    By taking up your clearly anti-science stance and by rejecting ALL of sciences methods and checks then
    you are by definition choosing a position that is more biased and less accurate than that of science and
    scientists.

    You are Irrational.
    You are illogical.
    You are biased.

    And this is objectively and demonstrably true.
    You can look up the rules of logic, and the principles of reason and check them against what you post.

    Denying this is to either show that you completely fail to comprehend what logic and rationality are and mean,
    OR
    You are simply lying and/or trolling.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    17 Mar '12 00:52
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    [b]"Unreasonable and irrational people can not be reasoned with, ... "

    That was my point, you are unreasonable and irrational and can't be reasoned with.

    "... besides, most people like to laugh."

    Um, probably... what the does that have to do with anything?

    I like to laugh, but that's irrelevant to whether or not you ( ...[text shortened]... d what logic and rationality are and mean,
    OR
    You are simply lying and/or trolling.[/b]
    I am not against science as a whole. I am against the scientist who use their
    bias of atheism when conducting science. I will admit that I have a Christian
    bias in my world view just as you have a atheistic bias in your world view.
    However, I do not consider myself any more irrational or illogical than any one
    else I have had discussions with. I can not even conceive of the possibility that
    there could be sufficient evidence to convince me to become an atheist.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Mar '12 01:18
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am not against science as a whole. I am against the scientist who use their
    bias of atheism when conducting science. I will admit that I have a Christian
    bias in my world view just as you have a atheistic bias in your world view.
    However, I do not consider myself any more irrational or illogical than any one
    else I have had discussions with. I can no ...[text shortened]... of the possibility that
    there could be sufficient evidence to convince me to become an atheist.
    Well I realise that you don't consider yourself to be irrational but you clearly are.

    Rationality has two components.
    Component one is to try to have as accurate a world view as possible so as to have the best
    and most accurate foundation for making decisions and choices which is component two.

    Component two is to use logic and reason to deduce the optimal method for achieving your goals,
    whatever they may be. (and you can use logic and reason to help determine appropriate goals)

    You clearly fail component one, you believe in things based on blind faith, and wont accept evidence
    that contradicts those beliefs which means that your world view is inaccurate and you have no mechanism
    for fixing it.

    I don't know if you fail component two, you might use reason and logic to try to deduce the optimal method
    of achieving your goals, (although the evidence here is not encouraging) however given that you fail
    component one the foundation you use for making these decisions is faulty and thus so are those decisions.


    As for logic, that is even clearer, seldom do you make a post of any length that doesn't contain at least one
    logical fallacy. You claim things as proof that are nothing of the sort, and make arguments that are totally flawed.
    This means you are unequivocally illogical.



    You are against science as a whole (although you don't see it that way due to your inaccurate world view)
    because you oppose the scientific method. You hold beliefs based on faith despite the evidence rather than
    believe in things based on the evidence.
    You also hold beliefs that flatly contradict all the known laws of physics and and knowledge gained in every major
    field of science.
    There is literally no part of science that doesn't contradict your beliefs of a young earth creation by the biblical god in
    some way or another.


    Also, atheism is not a bias and is not [inherently] a belief.

    Atheism is the default position you take until evidence arises that indicates that a god or gods of some sort exist.

    Scientists (on the whole) are not scientists because they are atheists, they are scientists because they believe in
    rationality and skeptical enquiry and that is also why they are atheists.
    There atheism doesn't inform their science, their science informs their atheism.


    When you claim that you can't think of any evidence that would convince you to become an atheist you are demonstrating that
    you are anti science and irrational.


    Rationality requires that you believe in only that which is justified by evidence.
    Thus a god or gods should only be believed in when there is evidence to justify that belief.
    Until such a time as that evidence is found then the default starting position you take in the face of a lack of evidence IS atheism.

    You don't need evidence to be an atheist, you need evidence to justify stopping being an atheist and becoming a theist.



    However let me ask you this.

    If it were proved that we were simply the product of the physical workings of our brains.
    And that we have no souls or spirit and thus there can be no afterlife.

    Would that convince you that your god and religious beliefs were wrong?

    (given that your belief system is contingent on the existence of an afterlife and souls/spirit)
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    17 Mar '12 02:402 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Well I realise that you don't consider yourself to be irrational but you clearly are.

    Rationality has two components.
    Component one is to try to have as accurate a world view as possible so as to have the best
    and most accurate foundation for making decisions and choices which is component two.

    Component two is to use logic and reason to deduce that your belief system is contingent on the existence of an afterlife and souls/spirit)
    Do you also think all those scientists throughout history who happened to be
    Christian were irrational, illogical, and biased as you think I am?

    P.S. I believe there is already evidence that the mind and the brain are not the
    same.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    17 Mar '12 02:45
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There is not much sense in trying to explain the logic since you don't care to
    use logic anyway.
    Do you really think you are using LOGIC? Explain that one to me.
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    17 Mar '12 03:09
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Do you really think you are using LOGIC? Explain that one to me.
    If A equals B, and B is greater than C, Then A is also greater than C.
  8. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14606
    17 Mar '12 14:27
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I am not against science as a whole. I am against the scientist who use their
    bias of atheism when conducting science. I will admit that I have a Christian
    bias in my world view just as you have a atheistic bias in your world view.
    However, I do not consider myself any more irrational or illogical than any one
    else I have had discussions with. I can no ...[text shortened]... of the possibility that
    there could be sufficient evidence to convince me to become an atheist.
    Who ever tried to convince you to become an atheist? You are free to hold your beliefs in full.

    Since you are a theist, kindly please state what are the epistemic instruments you used in order to come up with your conclusion that there is sufficient evidence that G-d is an existent epistemic object😵
  9. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    17 Mar '12 16:13
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    If A equals B, and B is greater than C, Then A is also greater than C.
    Well done. That is a logical argument.

    Unfortunately you are demonstrating that you can create a logical argument which means
    that you just lost the excuse of not understanding logic for all the illogical arguments you
    make.
  10. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    17 Mar '12 17:311 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Well done. That is a logical argument.

    Unfortunately you are demonstrating that you can create a logical argument which means
    that you just lost the excuse of not understanding logic for all the illogical arguments you
    make.
    of he just found that somewhere on the web and doesn't really understand why a is greater than c... like the time he was pretending to be an engineer and claimed understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, but the truth was revealed when he was forced to explain his understanding.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree