"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
TheHeretic said:
NobleGuy said:
TheHeretic said:
NobleGuy said:
There's only conflict if people choose to have conflict. This thread harbours conflict because most of the posters have to be right and beat the opposition down, else they haven't 'won' 
If you say so. Does that apply to any discussion? Unfortunately there needs to be a discussion about religion, whether you think it is frivolous or not.
Here, have a piece of advice. If YOU do not want to partake in this thread, feel free to go to another thread. This thread has nothing to do with who is the cleverest, so take your spiny little accusations elsewhere.Going round and round and round and round and round and round....and round and round and round...starts to make you all look just a little bit sad
Anyway, I have a life to lead. Toodle-ooo!
IainT said:
So why mention conflict at all then? You must think it's a bad thing, I don't which is why I challenged it as a minor aside while making points far more worthy of discussion.
Oh, just a quickie then... So when I mention conflict being useless in this particular situation, you've conclusded that I must be implying that it's bad at all times, in all circumstances, ever? You're another one who can't use simple logic aren't you?IainT said:
You also attribute the source of conflict to be people's need to appear right, why on earth would someone concede a point (i.e. admit to being wrong) that they don't believe has been effectively challenged or that their logic shown to be faulty?
You miss the point entirely, although not surprisingly. Even if their logic had been shown to be conclusively faulty, still they wouldn't admit it. Hence the exercise seems pointless. Do you see...?IainT said:
NobleGuy said:
Anyway, I have a life to lead. Toodle-ooo!
...and like all who lose the argument stomps out in a huff with a parting Ad Hom.IainT said:
...and like all who lose the argument stomps out in a huff with a parting Ad Hom.
No contribution to the thread, attacking one side over the other, and so on, then flouncing out of the thread which he thinks is pointless. Ifmit is pointless, why participate? I think mr Noble clearly has taken umbrage to having his beliefs questions. TheHeretic said:
IainT said:
...and like all who lose the argument stomps out in a huff with a parting Ad Hom.
No contribution to the thread, attacking one side over the other, and so on, then flouncing out of the thread which he thinks is pointless. Ifmit is pointless, why participate? I think mr Noble clearly has taken umbrage to having his beliefs questions. If you look back, you'll find I periodically come to visit this thread to see if the same saddos are rotating the same arguments that they were some months ago...
And they are! Yay!
NobleGuy said:
No, don't. Please... I'm so in awe of your unquestioned brilliance that I couldn't stay a second longer
If you look back, you'll find I periodically come to visit this thread to see if the same saddos are rotating the same arguments that they were some months ago...
More ad-hom. You never addressed any of the points, instead you chose to pronounce how pointless it all is, and ad-hom. Do you really think you deserve any respect for this?If you look back, you'll find I periodically come to visit this thread to see if the same saddos are rotating the same arguments that they were some months ago...
TheHeretic said:
NobleGuy said:
No, don't. Please... I'm so in awe of your unquestioned brilliance that I couldn't stay a second longer
If you look back, you'll find I periodically come to visit this thread to see if the same saddos are rotating the same arguments that they were some months ago...
More ad-hom. You never addressed any of the points, instead you chose to pronounce how pointless it all is, and ad-hom. Do you really think you deserve any respect for this?If you look back, you'll find I periodically come to visit this thread to see if the same saddos are rotating the same arguments that they were some months ago...
Oh, is ad-hom the in-word or something? It's nauseatingly pompous...again not exactly a surprise but still.
NobleGuy said:
IainT said:
So why mention conflict at all then? You must think it's a bad thing, I don't which is why I challenged it as a minor aside while making points far more worthy of discussion.
Oh, just a quickie then... So when I mention conflict being useless in this particular situation, you've conclusded that I must be implying that it's bad at all times, in all circumstances, ever? You're another one who can't use simple logic aren't you?There wasn't a decent context to your general rambling about conflict to limit your observation only to this thread and, given your posting, you're clearly up for conflict in this thread anyway. In this discussion as well. And, as I said, it was a minor point of little import to the overall discussion so now we know where we're all coming from on this we can move on...
NobleGuy said:
IainT said:
You also attribute the source of conflict to be people's need to appear right, why on earth would someone concede a point (i.e. admit to being wrong) that they don't believe has been effectively challenged or that their logic shown to be faulty?
You miss the point entirely, although not surprisingly. Even if their logic had been shown to be conclusively faulty, still they wouldn't admit it. Hence the exercise seems pointless. Do you see...?1) 'They'? Which they, people in general, the religious or Atheists?
2) What evidence do you have for this position? I've seen plenty of debates on PH where people have conceded points. On this thread I've seen atheists point out to others arguing against religion that their logic is wrong or misapplied hence showing a willingness to apply a consistency of logic.
It might seem pointless to you, that's your prerogative, but I quite enjoy the bandying back and forth of ideas. Given most atheists have very personal reasons for not believing in god(s) some from a reasoned and rational position, some from an emotional one, there's a lot of room for discussion that may or may not be pointless. What does it matter either way?
wollowizard said:
Strangely Brown said:
wollowizard said:
I don't intend to get bogged down with all that again, I only popped in to point out that if you say God does bad thing you must first believe him to exist.
No. You popped up to say that God did not advocate genocide.Does, or does not, the Abrahamic God of The Bible advocate, command, order, suggest or otherwise support genocide?
Yes or No?
Is the God that you believe in, the Abrahamic God of The Bible?
NobleGuy said:
And so we prove that you really don't get it at all do you? Why on Earth would you think I'm looking for anyone's respect on this thread...?
Oh, is ad-hom the in-word or something? It's nauseatingly pompous...again not exactly a surprise but still.
Sorry, what have you proved? Oh, is ad-hom the in-word or something? It's nauseatingly pompous...again not exactly a surprise but still.
It seems to me all you have proven is that you will happily march into a thread, fart loudly in the liddlemof it, then leave, whilst calling people stuff, unless you can show otherwise? Ad-hom is not an 'in word'. It describes a method or arguing. It is not nauseatingly pompous, it is describing what you did. if you aren't interested in this thread, leave, and stay to other threads. You are not adding anything.
IainT said:
Fair enough, why is conflict on this thread a bad thing?
I've already said why's. It's going nowhere...if it were getting anyone anywhere I might get it, but it's not.IainT said:
NobleGuy said:
IainT said:
You also attribute the source of conflict to be people's need to appear right, why on earth would someone concede a point (i.e. admit to being wrong) that they don't believe has been effectively challenged or that their logic shown to be faulty?
You miss the point entirely, although not surprisingly. Even if their logic had been shown to be conclusively faulty, still they wouldn't admit it. Hence the exercise seems pointless. Do you see...?1) 'They'? Which they, people in general, the religious or Atheists?
2) What evidence do you have for this position? I've seen plenty of debates on PH where people have conceded points. On this thread I've seen atheists point out to others arguing against religion that their logic is wrong or misapplied hence showing a willingness to apply a consistency of logic.
It might seem pointless to you, that's your prerogative, but I quite enjoy the bandying back and forth of ideas. Given most atheists have very personal reasons for not believing in god(s) some from a reasoned and rational position, some from an emotional one, there's a lot of room for discussion that may or may not be pointless. What does it matter either way?
2) Go back about 3 or 4 months and you'll see that (as an agnostic) I pointed out various flaws in the scientific argument (the Big Bang specifically, but also some unproven bull**** plucked out of thin air) and the hurricane of indignation I received and the inability for anyone to admit defeat or see anyone else's point of view made me realise the pointlessness of the thread.
Fast forward a few months and it's still going with the same posters making the same points and making the same derogatory remarks about the 'other side'. I do come on here now purely to antagonise, but I suppose I'm also semi-serious.
As for does it matter either way, thinking about it...I guess not really
NobleGuy said:
I pointed out various flaws in the scientific argument (the Big Bang specifically, but also some unproven bull**** plucked out of thin air) and the hurricane of indignation I received and the inability for anyone to admit defeat or see anyone else's point of view made me realise the pointlessness of the thread.
You actually said that there was no more evidence for the big bang than there was for god. Which is why, quite rightly, you were roundly derided.Strangely Brown said:
wollowizard said:
Strangely Brown said:
wollowizard said:
I don't intend to get bogged down with all that again, I only popped in to point out that if you say God does bad thing you must first believe him to exist.
No. You popped up to say that God did not advocate genocide.Does, or does not, the Abrahamic God of The Bible advocate, command, order, suggest or otherwise support genocide?
Yes or No?
Is the God that you believe in, the Abrahamic God of The Bible?
TheHeretic said:
Ad-hom is not an 'in word'. It describes a method or arguing. It is not nauseatingly pompous, it is describing what you did. if you aren't interested in this thread, leave, and stay to other threads. You are not adding anything.
No...I know it's not an in-word... And I know what it means. But no-one speaks like that. You see, in my experience people that use phrases like that are purely trying to show everyone how 'clever' they are, but (again in my experience) that 'clever' chap doesn't understand what a turn-off it is for the very people you're trying (but failing) to (pointlessly) impress...
I may have you wrong of course and I'm sure you're a decent person and all that, but it does smack of "I'm better than you".
carmonk said:
NobleGuy said:
I pointed out various flaws in the scientific argument (the Big Bang specifically, but also some unproven bull**** plucked out of thin air) and the hurricane of indignation I received and the inability for anyone to admit defeat or see anyone else's point of view made me realise the pointlessness of the thread.
You actually said that there was no more evidence for the big bang than there was for god. Which is why, quite rightly, you were roundly derided.I think you nearly cried when I suggested your belief in an unproven Big Bang Theory wasn't that far removed from a belief in the unproven Almighty...
NobleGuy said:
No...I know it's not an in-word... And I know what it means. But no-one speaks like that.
You see, in my experience people that use phrases like that are purely trying to show everyone how 'clever' they are, but (again in my experience) that 'clever' chap doesn't understand what a turn-off it is for the very people you're trying (but failing) to (pointlessly) impress...
I may have you wrong of course and I'm sure you're a decent person and all that, but it does smack of "I'm better than you".
Of course it does. You see, in my experience people that use phrases like that are purely trying to show everyone how 'clever' they are, but (again in my experience) that 'clever' chap doesn't understand what a turn-off it is for the very people you're trying (but failing) to (pointlessly) impress...
I may have you wrong of course and I'm sure you're a decent person and all that, but it does smack of "I'm better than you".
You do seem terribly upset because of its use. Do long words make you feel uneasy? Feel free to ignore me, as I shall be doing the same to you.
TheHeretic said:
NobleGuy said:
No...I know it's not an in-word... And I know what it means. But no-one speaks like that.
You see, in my experience people that use phrases like that are purely trying to show everyone how 'clever' they are, but (again in my experience) that 'clever' chap doesn't understand what a turn-off it is for the very people you're trying (but failing) to (pointlessly) impress...
I may have you wrong of course and I'm sure you're a decent person and all that, but it does smack of "I'm better than you".
Of course it does. You see, in my experience people that use phrases like that are purely trying to show everyone how 'clever' they are, but (again in my experience) that 'clever' chap doesn't understand what a turn-off it is for the very people you're trying (but failing) to (pointlessly) impress...
I may have you wrong of course and I'm sure you're a decent person and all that, but it does smack of "I'm better than you".
You do seem terribly upset because of its use. Do long words make you feel uneasy? Ad-hom. Not exactly long. Nor complicated. I'm just trying to point out it makes you sound too try-hard.
wollowizard said:
That is a question that has been answered many many times on PH. There isn't any need to ask it again.
It's a simple 'yes' or 'no', and it would have been far quicker and easier for you to type one of those than the deliberately evasive "answer that wasn't".Is the God that you believe in, the Abrahamic God of The Bible.
Yes or No?
NobleGuy said:
carmonk said:
NobleGuy said:
I pointed out various flaws in the scientific argument (the Big Bang specifically, but also some unproven bull**** plucked out of thin air) and the hurricane of indignation I received and the inability for anyone to admit defeat or see anyone else's point of view made me realise the pointlessness of the thread.
You actually said that there was no more evidence for the big bang than there was for god. Which is why, quite rightly, you were roundly derided.I think you nearly cried when I suggested your belief in an unproven Big Bang Theory wasn't that far removed from a belief in the unproven Almighty...
NobleGuy said:
I think I said science doesn't yet explain it any better. God creating the universe from nothing, or particles creating the universe from nothing. Like I said at the time, neither has any proof unless you count potential theories that as of yet have no real basis in fact.
I think you nearly cried when I suggested your belief in an unproven Big Bang Theory wasn't that far removed from a belief in the unproven Almighty...
Your point was addressed comprehensively by several posters, including me. You chose to ignore those responses.I think you nearly cried when I suggested your belief in an unproven Big Bang Theory wasn't that far removed from a belief in the unproven Almighty...
No one cried, no one rounded on 'You', but your point was derided and shown to be thoroughly off the mark.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff