GadFly said (In reply to heavyarms):
What am I suppose to be helping?
Your own arguments would be a start...
I have pointed out time after time evidence for the existence of God.
Claims are NOT evidence. Never have been...
Nobody doubts the existence of science, math, laws of logic, and self evident truths based on unchangeable premises, all these evidenced by eternal laws.
Oh my.
Could you submit (here, and now) just
three "
unchangeable premises, all these evidenced by eternal laws"?
Please? Pretty please?
In so doing, could you please cite the SOURCE(s) of those premises as evidenced by those eternal laws? [Your claim, thus your burden to support].
If they refuse to use the logic the Western Civilization uses but have adopted their own logic based on error, how can I deal with them a civilized manner.
I guess you're screwed. Or...you could prevail with a more compelling logical argument...but so far...you remain screwed.
I can deal with any civilized person who uses standard thinking. Yes, I laugh at them but they are ridiculous in their thinking processes.
I am uncivil. I am ridiculous. I am laughable. I am here...still...to marginalize and eviscerate both your vapid ramblings and your protestations of treating with illogical morons.
I use humor, which they call sarcasm to avoid serious name calling.
Me too! Ain't we a pair?
There for awhil it worried me because I thought it was I who might be rude. Having observed these barge in on different threads and fight with and gang up on certain individuals in a very insulting manner, I realized it was not me because they have the same relationship with all those who attempt to reason with them. I challenge you to find a response in all my posting where I have not responded in the same respectful manner in which I have been addressed. If you find any send them in a personal message as the forum need not be involved in any hoax of intellectual honesty.
A dolt is a dolt, and an empty argument is an empty argument.
No act of disingenuous intellectual abandonment employed therein in stating as much. Not everything IS what it appears to be...but some things are EXACTLY what they appear to be. Hmmmm....
I don't mind criticism as long as I am permitted to answer back.
Good. Please don't EVER construe criticism as censorship.
I disagree strongly that I attack persons first.
Noted. You're
wrong, but your protestations
are noted and filed.
Their arguments is what I always go after first. That will anger a person more than a personal attacks, especially when they can not logically support their argument.
"
A Mirror, A Mirror...my Kingdom for a MIrror"!
(with due apologies to Willie Shakes...)
When I tell them they suffer from fly bites, I am saying they are angry because their weak arguments have been revealed as bunk.
What you
have revealed is your continually predictable and tiresome evidential capacities of empty rhetoric and ineffective rebuttal.
I admit I enjoy pointing out the weakness of their arguments. In this, I am guilty but it is not my fault they refuse to use standard principles of reasoning.
Oh, I wish I had
that tome...the
one that outlines the "
Standard Principles of Reasoning". I would care to understand better the "principles" that you uphold and maintain in the name and support/defense of that brand of "reason".
This is a skill and nothing stops them from learning how to reason using Aristotelian logic.
Indeed. Whence shall we expect you to evince this rare skill within your own contributions? And why impugn poor Aristotle in the wake of your own failings?
Every scientist, medical doctor, professional, and religionists with any formal training in logic, uses this method. That is what we all go by, why can't they use it?
I wonder upon this dilemma as well.
I can only speculate, but I would suppose that even the most intelligent and "logical" folks are often conflicted in rational dispensations of their most critical evaluations of deliberative conundrums as regards issues of personalized faith, and compelling facts.
Albert Einstein arguably remains as one of the most imaginative thinkers of the 20th Century. Most "average folks" consider his "scientific revelations" as unprecedented "genius"...and rightfully so. But, even Einstein was but a human within his own ingrained prejudices and beliefs...which he stubbornly held for the great remainder of his natural days. Einstein refused to accept/accede (the compelling alternative premise) that the cosmos was--in (subsequently evidenced) fact--a disordered and random occurrence of completely disengaged circumstances and events. Einstein did not want to BELIEVE that such evidences would ultimately manifest themselves as provably existent, or as you might care to argue..."self-evident".
Einstein
was a genius, a visionary, a true expeditionary explorer of the unrealized and the unimagined. He was also a man that lived in abject denial of increasingly compelling evidences contrary to his entrenched opinions...for over two-thirds of his remaining years. That fact...to this day...is both sad and unfortunate to accept.
In a word...Einstein
was wrong. Demonstrably, evidentially, empirically.
So too...are
you.
But you're no Einstein.
You're just wrong.
But...that's OK...;-)
