Listened to Richard Dawkins Lecture . . .

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Do you really want to make a universal assertion here? Can you prove that "not one shred of evidence" independent of various scriptures exists?

Much as you would disagree, the burden does not lie on myself or anyone else to prove that there is no evidence, an instant rebuttal of that type of universal statement would actually be evid ...[text shortened]... cause you always have the supernatural card to fall back on...so we hit back with our own![/b]

Much as you would disagree, the burden does not lie on myself or anyone else to prove that there is [b]no evidence[/b]

If you assert it, it does.

we cannot rationally argue with you because you always have the supernatural card to fall back on...

That's another example of a pseudo-argument.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]God, Allah etc... is pretty much synonimous with the FSM & IPU, etc... in that they are all supreme deities for which there is not one shred of evidence (independant of the bible, Qu-ran, Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster etc...).

It's precisely this kind of smug pseudo-argumentation I'm referring to.

Do you really want to make a un ...[text shortened]... eps out of the realm of biology, he cannot seem to avoid strawmen and over-generalisation.[/b]

Actually I think he's spot on. There is a great deal of gesticulating and posturing by theists, but when pressed I've never seen one produce something other than either arbitrary fluff or, even worse, the dodgy sort of charade you're doing now. In any case, it has become plain to me that the emperor has no clothes.

"You can't say there is no shred of evidence!"
"Ok, do you have some then?"
"Well, here you go!"
"First, there's no reason why that can't be accounted for naturally, and even if it could not, it is just as much evidence of any other supernatural thing as it is of your god."
"Well, you have to have some faith."
"If you have evidence, then I have no need for faith."
"You're close-minded."

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Much as you would disagree, the burden does not lie on myself or anyone else to prove that there is [b]no evidence[/b]

If you assert it, it does.

we cannot rationally argue with you because you always have the supernatural card to fall back on...

That's another example of a pseudo-argument.[/b]

[b]Much as you would disagree, the burden does not lie on myself or anyone else to prove that there is [b]no evidence[/b]

If you assert it, it does[/b]
Tell you what Lucifershammer...why don't you prove *that* assertion 😉... prove that if I assert it, the burden of proof lies upon me to prove what I have asserted

when you stop your silly evasion tactics I will take back this one

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, if only those smug secularists could see the difference between a rational argument and a smug pseudo-argument.

You know, LH, it is the height of hypocrisy to sneer at the smugness
of the 'other' camp. You yourself have asserted that, if you were not
Roman Catholic, you would be an atheist as the only other rational
alternative.

Implicitly, you are saying that the other Christian traditions are woefully
illogical and unworthy of pursuit. This is, of course, concordant with
Orthodox Roman teaching, wherein the salvation of all other non-
Catholics (and non-Christians) is mediated by Mother Church Herself.
This flies in the face of many other theologians -- Lutheran, Anglican,
and Presbyterian -- who have produced arguments which give their
traditions the 'logical edge' over the Roman Church. There is no
effective difference between the sola scriptura and tradition-
laden schools of theological thought: both think that they have the
right answer and that they can prove it because they point to something
which they assert is higher than any other thing.

There is no other position which illustrates such smugness than yours:
you really, really, really believe you are right. And as debate after
debate shows, you are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that the
Roman Church might be wrong. Dawkins (and I am not an apologist
for him by any means), at the very least, is opened to hearing proof
to the contrary. And as much as I disagree with some of his theses,
at least his entertains a dialogue rather than the theocratic arrogance
of a tradition who intercedes on the behalf of the 'less informed.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Much as you would disagree, the burden does not lie on myself or anyone else to prove that there is [b]no evidence[/b]

If you assert it, it does.

we cannot rationally argue with you because you always have the supernatural card to fall back on...

That's another example of a pseudo-argument.[/b]

You know LH, you are the finest, staunchest, critic on these forums on the topic of your own misunderstanding of evolution.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You know LH, you are the finest, staunchest, critic on these forums on the topic of your own misunderstanding of evolution.

And here I thought he was the finest, staunchest critic on these forums on the topic of your own misunderstanding of evolution. Just toes to go ya!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And here I thought he was the finest, staunchest critic on these forums on the topic of your own misunderstanding of evolution. Just toes to go ya!

No, no, don't worry, I understand it perfectly.