Present arguments for atheism

[Shad]

It most certainly is an obligation they are required to meet. Your robotic notions of justice as ordained by a computerprogram are nonsense. Reality is emotions, and a burden cannot be taken up without there being a point to it, so say my emotions.

Wrong, it is obligation you are required to meet, not they. You decline on providing evidence of your claim hence you do not care to convince anyone what you say is justified nor even worth reading. Emotions are fallacious grounds for a defense. Logic, you are doing it wrong again.

 

[McBell]

Nope. I expect him to whine within a text wall of sophistry.

Damn.
You got me there.
Though I suspect the only reason he did not directly say it was garbage is because I said something.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That is garbage and you know it.
I recognized a long time ago you do not present arguments.
You present garbage.
Lots and lots of garbage in an attempt to bury everyone in garbage so that when they give up you can claim victory.
You do nothing but play Pigeon Chess.

I know no such thing. It makes sense to reach a conclusion about what the agency of a decision by choosing, subjectivity is valid, and that is how it works.

You are very obviously just another atheist rejecting subjectivity, you are known by your stereotype.

 

[Shad]

Damn.
You got me there.
Though I suspect the only reason he did not directly say it was garbage is because I said something.

He tends to reply to me with walls of sophistry based upon experience. I usually go into more detail in replies than you have done, no offense. So I believe the quantity of the reply dictates the quantity of his own replies. Quality is not a factor apparently

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wrong, it is obligation you are required to meet, not they. You decline on providing evidence of your claim hence you do not care to convince anyone what you say is justified nor even worth reading. Emotions are fallacious grounds for a defense. Logic, you are doing it wrong again.

I did not say he has to produce the evidence, I just say he is required to take consequences if the evidence goes against him. Your idea that justice is a matter of logic is more mister Spock garbage.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

He tends to reply to me with walls of sophistry based upon experience. I usually go into more detail in replies than you have done, no offense. So I believe the quantity of the reply dictates the quantity of his own replies. Quality is not a factor apparently

Here we see how evolutionary science got to be accepted in academia.

 

[McBell]

I know no such thing. It makes sense to reach a conclusion about what the agency of a decision by choosing, subjectivity is valid, and that is how it works.

You are very obviously just another atheist rejecting subjectivity, you are known by your stereotype.

Your denial proves it is garbage.
Your assumptions are merely making you look a bigger and bigger ***.

Are you ever going to present support for your ""argument"" or are you content with completely destroying your credibility?

 

[leibowde84]

Ridiculous, you said honesty was a fact and to deny it is insane. Here in this topic you insist that truth is just fact. About God you made it into a question is not known as fact now, but maybe can be known as fact later question, which is categorizing in terms of fact all the same. You have no problem with it to simply make completely contradictory statements as you see fit.

You can provide the comment, if you dare. But, it is clear that you won't because I never made these claims. And dishonesty about claims made by others is against forum rules, so I have reported your post.

I did, however, claim that it is objective/factual whether or not someone was being honest in a certain situation, but only they themselves will know it. Judgments about whether someone else is being honest will always be subjective.

 

[McBell]

He tends to reply to me with walls of sophistry based upon experience. I usually go into more detail in replies than you have done, no offense. So I believe the quantity of the reply dictates the quantity of his own replies. Quality is not a factor apparently

It is like I said in another post, he piles on bunches and bunches of garbage in the hopes of over whelming his opponent into quitting so he can claim victory.
So I agree with you, he is all about quantity.
Quality is completely lost him.

 

[leibowde84]

I am saying, it is just a debating tactic of Leibowde to provide work for me, and he will take no consequence whatsoever from me showing where he said those things.

I never said those things, so there are no commentss to cite. You are merely confused. I said that whether or not someone was honest is objective, but only they will know. Judgments about others being honest are always subjective.

 

[leibowde84]

I did not say he has to produce the evidence, I just say he is required to take consequences if the evidence goes against him. Your idea that justice is a matter of logic is more mister Spock garbage.

You haven't cited my comment, which doesn't exist. So, you have to do your part by citing the comment, or it just looks like you are being dishonest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your denial proves it is garbage.
Your assumptions are merely making you look a bigger and bigger ***.

Are you ever going to present support for your ""argument"" or are you content with completely destroying your credibility?

This is how Darwinists denied Mendels findings for up to 72 years. The Darwinists thought that natural selection worked based on very slight incremental changes, and they could not fathom how discrete changes worked, so they imagined it was blended. So they perceived Mendel as an enemy to their ideology, and fought the Mendelists in the journals and academia with the wellknown tactics of evolutonists.

 

[leibowde84]

This is how Darwinists denied Mendels findings for up to 72 years. The Darwinists thought that natural selection worked based on very slight incremental changes, and they could not fathom how discrete changes worked, so they imagined it was blended. So they perceived Mendel as an enemy to their ideology, and fought the Mendelists in the journals and academia with the wellknown tactics of evolutonists.

You haven't provided any evidence. You've merely made empty accusations and have refused to back them up in the least.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I never said those things, so there are no commentss to cite. You are merely confused. I said that whether or not someone was honest is objective, but only they will know. Judgments about others being honest are always subjective.

Objective.... it's a fact. That it is also an "opinion", in your sollipist view of things, that's besides the point.

 

[McBell]

This is how Darwinists denied Mendels findings for up to 72 years. The Darwinists thought that natural selection worked based on very slight incremental changes, and they could not fathom how discrete changes worked, so they imagined it was blended. So they perceived Mendel as an enemy to their ideology, and fought the Mendelists in the journals and academia with the wellknown tactics of evolutonists.

ever heard the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?
I cannot help but wonder where you obtained this garbage....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You haven't provided any evidence. You've merely made empty accusations and have refused to back them up in the least.

Why now you already come forward with saying honesty is objective, why don't you display some candour about the rest.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

ever heard the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?
I cannot help but wonder where you obtained this garbage....

You are not below the average evolutionary scientist, this should make you proud in your view of things.

 

[Straw Dog]

Present your argument for atheism.

There are too many gods to choose from. They can't all be real, but they can all be fiction.

 

[McBell]

Why now you already come forward with saying honesty is objective, why don't you display some candour about the rest.

Still ignoring you told a lie?

 

[leibowde84]

Objective.... it's a fact. That it is also an "opinion", in your sollipist view of things, that's besides the point.

Again, I am not claiming honsestly to be objective. I am saying that WHETHER SOMEONE WAS HONEST is objective. Here is your proof ... yet again.

"A says that the earth is flat. A knows that the earth is spherical. A was dishonest (objective)." = fact

"A says that the earth is flat to B. B assumes that A knows well that the earth is spherical. B thinks that A is being dishonest (subjective)." = opinion/choice