The default position...

[Deathbydefault]

Some might deem it childish to assert this while asserting a position another has demonstrated false (or even deem childish the claim that one isn't being childish after having asserting an argument that one has refused to defend solely because one can't be "baited" to do so, especially when one has defended one's positions before when confronted with counter-arguments one was better able to address). All familiar with argumentation (in the technical, logical/reason "sense") would judge it self-defeating. Personally, I don't really care what you are unable to defend or why, still less what excuses you make for being unable (when convenient) for defending your "arguments".

I gave you the definition according to the most authoritative dictionary of English in existence, you relied on a google search. I use logic and reason, you use assertions and the "I'm not going to argue my own claims". I use linguistics, you use an understanding of language that is inconsistent with all scientific accounts of language. Basically, your default defense is if you haven't the foggiest, claim you don't wish to debate (in a debate forum...where you've posted an argument for debate). To me, someone who repeatedly posts their arguments in a debate forum only to suddenly quit offering counter-arguments with the excuse that the counters are offered by someone who seems "a pain to debate with" have admitted defeat. Those who can't be debated with can be demonstrated to be incapable of debating with when they abandon logic/reason, not when they start offering evidence and arguments.


Not for anybody participating in a discussion in a debate forum. But hey! If your self-esteem is so wrapped up in being able to assert what you wish until challenged, and then backing out by excusing yourself with "I don't care despite my hundreds of posts in a debate forum", and it works for you, go ahead. It's just not a tactic I'm used to seeing used by non-creationists and the like.

Take it up with bunyip, I agree with everything he has said on this topic.
If you refute him then you refute me.
If you want to see my arguments on the discussion there's about 20 pages of it in this thread.
I got tired of this debate so I just pop in every now and then to back up bunyip and watch my own thread.
I've no interest in actively participating in drawn out arguments, not while I'm at school anyways.

You would be a pain to debate with, you're the smart type so I would have to re-read articles and source information to be level with you.
That is why you are a pain to debate with, take it as a compliment I guess.
But let's be honest, neither one of us is capable of convincing the other to our side.
We're level up to a certain point where it hits a more opinion based difference and that's what we are arguing here.

Not interested.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Take it up with bunyip

Done.

If you refute him then you refute me.

fait accompli.

 

[Deathbydefault]

fait accompli.

I don't recall you refuting Bunyip...
Post #'s please.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't recall you refuting Bunyip...
Post #'s please.

That would date back to before you were a member. You'll have to be more specific. That way, all you need to do is quote him and I'll provide the refutation I have already (whether in whatever discussion you posted or a previous one). Alternatively, you could just use science and logic here (I don't see why that's too much to ask for someone "pro science" in a debate forum addressing a practicing scientist in the same forum).

 

[Deathbydefault]

That would date back to before you were a member. You'll have to be more specific. That way, all you need to do is quote him and I'll provide the refutation I have already (whether in whatever discussion you posted or a previous one). Alternatively, you could just use science and logic here (I don't see why that's too much to ask for someone "pro science" in a debate forum addressing a practicing scientist in the same forum).

Lol, had me excited there for a second.
I meant for this thread, where you had refuted him.
But pick any post you like, he's on about every single page.

I am indeed Pro Science, I have already gotten the information I wanted from here.
You have also not provided any new information to the table, it's stuff I've seen before.

That's why I know it's pointless to argue it, if this were a chess game we both would only have one pawn and one king.
The chances of getting our pawns to the other side are near impossible, so it stays a stagnant game.
We would just sit here with the same two pieces of information and nowhere to go with it.
The way we would win is by getting the pawn to the other side, getting that irrefutable information that wins the game.

I'm the type that enjoys loosing at chess, though it doesn't happen often irl, because I love knowledge.
If you think you have some new information that is irrefutable and 100% proves your point then I'm happy to reply.
But until you provide that you will not get the debate you want with me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Lol, had me excited there for a second.
I meant for this thread, where you had refuted him.
But pick any post you like, he's on about every single page.

In that case, here.

I am indeed Pro Science, I have already gotten the information I wanted from here.

So you are pro-science but dismiss the basis for the entire scientific enterprise as well as the practices we scientists use? Interesting.

You have also not provided any new information to the table, it's stuff I've seen before.

You are familiar with polysemy? The neurobiology of belief and the cognitive science of religion? How many fMRI studies have you read or conducted?

That's why I know it's pointless to argue it, if this were a chess game we both would only have one pawn and one king.

Chess is a "game" in the game-theoretic sense. Here, it is true that things are not so simple. However, according to every post you have yet written, they are: there is nothing that isn't refutable using proofs consistent with your requirements. Alternatively, as you seem to require logic for your side (and clearly are "pro-science" despite obviously not being a scientist), your position is self-defeating.

 

[Deathbydefault]

In that case, here.


So you are pro-science but dismiss the basis for the entire scientific enterprise as well as the practices we scientists use? Interesting.



You are familiar with polysemy? The neurobiology of belief and the cognitive science of religion? How many fMRI studies have you read or conducted?

Chess is a "game" in the game-theoretic sense. Here, it is true that things are not so simple. However, according to every post you have yet written, they are: there is nothing that isn't refutable using proofs consistent with your requirements. Alternatively, as you seem to require logic for your side (and clearly are "pro-science" despite obviously not being a scientist), your position is self-defeating.

My last post implied a period on our conversation, thanks for the participation though.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My last post implied a period on our conversation, thanks for the participation though.

I'm not entirely certain if that is just a typo (of the sort I make in nearly every post) or if English isn't your first language. At any rate, I'm not sure what you implied, but do recognize that you require another to defend whatever position you claim to defend (as you asserted this) and that you can't defend critiques of the individual's positions that you depend on. That makes your position both irrelevant and (to the extent that it reflects your own) completely baseless.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm not entirely certain if that is just a typo (of the sort I make in nearly every post) or if English isn't your first language. At any rate, I'm not sure what you implied, but do recognize that you require another to defend whatever position you claim to defend (as you asserted this) and that you can't defend critiques of the individual's positions that you depend on. That makes your position both irrelevant and (to the extent that it reflects your own) completely baseless.

You don't seem to realize something.
You are uninteresting to me.
I don't want to deal with you right now.
Debating with individuals such as yourself is a hassle.
I do not require others to defend me, nor do I need reliance.
I was simply trying to pass you off to someone else so that I wouldn't have to deal with you.

Just because I don't want to do something doesn't mean I cannot do something.
Nor do I have anything to prove to you or anyone else so I don't feel the need to bother with things I find pointlessly tedious.
I suggested Bunyip for this subject because we have the same view on it.
You have yet to successfully refute him.
You have yet to become something that I deem able to relieve boredom.

Therefore you can either stop replying to me or I can throw you on ignore and continue my day a bit happier.
Either way, I win. It's your choice though.

Sorry to be straight forward about it but you don't seem to get it otherwise.

 

[Augustus]

Tradition without a foundation in some sort of reason is highly suspect. Why or how did it start? They mustn't be their own justification.

Time is the evidence. Usually much better evidence than superficial human reason.

3 musicians that will 99% certainly still be popular in 50 years - Mozart, Beethoven and Bach. Now tell me 3 new musicians who will be popular in 50 years? Confident?

Things that have stood the 'test of time' a far more likely to have genuine merit or serve a genuine purpose, than any new ideas.

It's very simple.

Anyone with a direct belief in God(s) is a theist.
Anyone with a lack of belief in God(s) is an atheist.

So long as you have a God belief you are a theist or an agnostic theist or deist or whatever you want to be called.
If you don't actively have a God belief you are an atheist, that includes "I don't know" and "I don't care" stances.

God belief is very much a polarity.
Start fighting definitions if you disagree.

Even if we accept your definition of theist/atheist which is probably not the average definition, albeit a valid one. Even if we avoid the problems of what can be classified as a God and where followers of non-revealed religions would fit in. Even if we ignore the fact that a theist/atheist distinction is a product of a Western worldview and is not a universally held concept. Even then your statement is still wrong; belief in God is not a polarity.

Some people believe that God might exist. Using your logic they are atheists as anyone who doesn't answer 'yes' to the question of "Do you believe in God?" is an atheist.

Someone who answers 'maybe' is expressing uncertainty or probability though. They are effectively expressing a partial belief in God. Are they 30% atheist and 70% theist?

What about "Do you believe in God?" Sometimes... Is such a person constantly fluctuating between being a theist and an atheist?

Trying to fit people into nice, clean well defined boxes on an issue such as this is basically an exercise in oversimplification and distortion of the issue.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I do not require others to defend me

So you relied on another for the entirety of your argument for other reasons. Ok....

nor do I need reliance.

Contrary to your own assertion.

I was simply trying to pass you off to someone else so that I wouldn't have to deal with you.

If you had a defensible position, you could easily "deal with me" using the "pro-science" position you claim to possess. I work as a scientist, you claim to be pro-science, so one would think that your approach would at least approximate mine. Instead, you depend on a 3rd party.

Nor do I have anything to prove to you or anyone else

...which is why you have hundreds of posts in debate forums.

 

[Deathbydefault]

So you relied on another for the entirety of your argument for other reasons. Ok....

Contrary to your own assertion.

If you had a defensible position, you could easily "deal with me" using the "pro-science" position you claim to possess. I work as a scientist, you claim to be pro-science, so one would think that your approach would at least approximate mine. Instead, you depend on a 3rd party.


...which is why you have hundreds of posts in debate forums.

Thank you for making your choice.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, it most certainly is not. The origin of the universe is a different topic entirely. The degree of certainty is a different topic also.

That's a self-serving declaration without foundation. You don't have any idea (based on evidence) of how the universe came to be, and you don't declare any degree of certainty when you say God doesn't exist, which doesn't have a qualifier that allows for anything other than certainty. Those are facts.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thank you for making your choice.

No problem. It's called logic and science. An easy choice for me to make.

 

[lstan135]

Atheist often live their lives contradicting themselves. On the one hand, they want to see real evidence/s before they believing in anything. But on the other they uses act of faith in the things they touch, see n smell on a daily basis. They do not demand for proof of hygiene safety n just gobble down the food they like to eat. They do not demand for proof of reliability of a car or vehicle n just hop into it. They do not ask for proof of structural stability before entering any building. They are actually acting in blind faith all the time. Real pathetic type of people who strongly denouces using faith all the time. Just how silly can they get? Get it?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Atheist often live their lives contradicting themselves. On the one hand, they want to see real evidence/s before they believing in anything. But on the other they uses act of faith in the things they touch, see n smell on a daily basis. They do not demand for proof of hygiene safety n just gobble down the food they like to eat. They do not demand for proof of reliability of a car or vehicle n just hop into it. They do not ask for proof of structural stability before entering any building. They are actually acting in blind faith all the time. Real pathetic type of people who strongly denouces using faith all the time. Just how silly can they get? Get it?

False.
Try again.

 

[lstan135]

Loser's reply method.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Loser's reply method.

By that logic, your last message was a viewpoint from idiocy and ignorance.
You can't just tell someone how they think when you know almost literally nothing about them.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheist often live their lives contradicting themselves. On the one hand, they want to see real evidence/s before they believing in anything.

Atheism has nothing to do with wanting to "see real evidence/s before they believing in anything". Atheism is just an absence of belief in god(s). An atheist can believe in whatever he/she likes except gods with or without "real evidence".

 

[Bunyip]

That's a self-serving declaration without foundation. You don't have any idea (based on evidence) of how the universe came to be, and you don't declare any degree of certainty when you say God doesn't exist, which doesn't have a qualifier that allows for anything other than certainty. Those are facts.

So what? I don't have any idea how micro-processors work either - it still has nothing to do with atheism. God doesn't exist, I am 99.999% certain.