|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 27, 2014 8:23:52 GMT 10
Response 1. Non-sequitur. Response 2. Ad hominem Response 3. Argumentative, requires an example. Response 4. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, says so. Response 5. ...And since nature is finite, what is IT'S cause?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 27, 2014 9:42:30 GMT 10
Never read it. Never had to. Then it must comfort you greatly to make uninformed claims about a process you've never actually researched. Based on the methods of your other conclusions, the amount of my shock and astonishment is minimal.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 27, 2014 12:53:29 GMT 10
I use my own brain, perhaps one day you should try thinking for yourself too. I don't need to rely in a book to come up with logical conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 29, 2014 3:16:11 GMT 10
Yeah... That's right. No lousy book learnin' fer yuu. You lurnt wut's come naturally. All logicky, n' stuff. 'Least you got chicken.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 29, 2014 3:18:41 GMT 10
I wouldn't expect that you'd have used someone else's. It's a sure pity that you have so little to work with; my deepest condolences. ( Query: Does 'thinking for myself' involve adapting to your rigid mindset? 'Cause I kinda think that's the opposite of it. The fact that I am opposed to your opinions; is evidence I am thinking for myself.)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 29, 2014 3:37:52 GMT 10
I don't need to rely in a book to come up with logical conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 29, 2014 6:29:46 GMT 10
I wouldn't expect that you'd have used someone else's. By George, is he finally starting to get it? The reason I said I use my own brain is because you clearly admit that you don't! You are the one that relies on a bogus book for your opinions. I have my own. Please try it one day, free yourself. It's wonderful!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 29, 2014 6:31:20 GMT 10
It's a sure pity that you have so little to work with; my deepest condolences. I have more to work with than you, you are still aspiring to reach the dizzy heights of being a moron.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 29, 2014 6:37:05 GMT 10
( Query: Does 'thinking for myself' involve adapting to your rigid mindset? 'Cause I kinda think that's the opposite of it. The fact that I am opposed to your opinions; is evidence I am thinking for myself.) How so? All you are doing is following your book rigidly, you're not thinking for your self at all. And if you can't see that, then you are truly brainwashed ( But I'd say that for that be true, you need to have a functioning brain in the first place, so you do have an excuse there for your failure). My mindset is not rigid as it is the one that changed from believing in God to NOT believing in God. And if you are ever clever enough to produce actual proof that a God exists, then I would change my mind again. But hey, you're not that clever, are you?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 29, 2014 6:49:36 GMT 10
I don't need to rely in a book to come up with logical conclusions. You clearly have no idea what logic means, let me help you: log·ic [loj-ik] noun 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move. 5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts. Definition 1 rules out the Bible. A book that has the order in which way the world was supposedly created wrong cannot be RELIABLE. Definition 2 rules out the Bible. There is no logical reasoning to believe that a God exists. Definition 3 rules out the Bible. There is no knowledge of the actual existence of any God otherwise Veritas would have shown us all. Definition 4 rules out the Bible. Clearly people who believe in the Bible are incapable of sound judgement as they cannot back up their faith with facts. Definition 5 rules out the Bible. You cannot handle the truth!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 30, 2014 0:04:06 GMT 10
It's a sure pity that you have so little to work with; my deepest condolences. I have more to work with than you, you are still aspiring to reach the dizzy heights of being a moron. I didn't realize that being a moron was so taxing; don't worry with enough practice it'll get easier for you. (You don't get to decide my aspirations, by the way.)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 30, 2014 0:15:20 GMT 10
( Query: Does 'thinking for myself' involve adapting to your rigid mindset? 'Cause I kinda think that's the opposite of it. The fact that I am opposed to your opinions; is evidence I am thinking for myself.) How so? All you are doing is following your book rigidly, you're not thinking for your self at all. If I follow your advice without ever questioning it, I am doing the very thing you are telling me not to do. By following the Bible I AM thinking for myself; I've decided for myself, that the Bible is true.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 30, 2014 0:22:38 GMT 10
Definition 1 rules out the Bible. A book that has the order in which way the world was supposedly created wrong cannot be RELIABLE. Begs the question. Also begs the question. With the paucity of knowledge we have about the universe; substantiate that claim. Non-sequitur. Just because something is scientifically unproven, doesn't mean it's not true. Circular logic. Ad hominem Yes, that is logic; unfortunately it's faulty logic.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 30, 2014 1:14:58 GMT 10
Lets play! What fallacy will Slarti make next?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 30, 2014 7:22:03 GMT 10
Sounds like most your arguments come from that grid, doesn't it. Tell us again how god is a person. You should be able to prove that one, as we can prove that people exist.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 30, 2014 9:18:26 GMT 10
Tu Quoque, that's Tu Quoque. Then a Red Herring, yes-- red herring. Followed by fallacy of the undistributed middle!
Get your dabbers ready!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 30, 2014 9:20:56 GMT 10
Love it.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 21, 2014 8:27:25 GMT 10
Let's look at some real research now, not the biased rubbish the apologists come up with: www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/Pew Research Center surveys show that half of Millennials (50%) now describe themselves as political independents and about three-in-ten (29%) say they are not affiliated with any religion. These are at or near the highest levels of political and religious disaffiliation recorded for any generation in the quarter-century that the Pew Research Center has been polling on these topics. Those saying Atheists in decline by 2020 must be ashamed of their "research". They are incapable of inflicting their religious nonsense on a generation that has more information available than any previous generation and that can independently think for itself and reject the fiction that there is a God. And that can only be a good thing!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 21, 2014 8:46:32 GMT 10
Non-religious does not ipso facto, equate atheism. Just another atheist shifting the goalposts in his favour.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 21, 2014 8:55:25 GMT 10
Being NOT affiliated with Religion means exactly that.
Nice of you to try to put a pro-religious spin on it. If you'd actually read the report, you'd find that only 36% of young adults describe themselves as "religious".
Today’s young adults are also less likely than middle-aged and older adults to describe themselves as religious. Roughly a third (36%) of Millennials say the phrase “a religious person” describes them very well. By comparison, half of Gen Xers (52%) and 55% of Boomers say this description fits them very well. And among Silents, about six-in-ten (61%) say this description fits them very well.
Again, the tendency of Millennials to shy away from this self-description is not unique to this generation of young adults. In 1999, 47% of Gen Xers said that “a religious person” described them very well, compared with 59% of adults ages 35 and older. Still today’s young adults are significantly less likely to identify themselves as religious when compared with Gen Xers at a comparable age (36% vs. 47%).
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 21, 2014 11:33:51 GMT 10
Being NOT affiliated with Religion means exactly that. No, not exactly. Spiritualists and Agnostics, are not necessarily atheists, just because they don't consider themselves 'religious.' There are also plenty of theists who may not attend Church regularly; that doesn't by default make them 'atheists.' These are only a few examples I can come up with off the top of my head, but I am certain there are more.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 26, 2014 12:04:57 GMT 10
But these people don't believe in God, nor do they pray or go to church. And they are on the rise, not the decline.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 28, 2014 2:32:01 GMT 10
Neither do they necessarily possess disbelief in God. (The term 'agnostic' means "No knowledge", the equivalent of an "I don't know", response.) They can however, believe in the supernatural. Most atheists do not.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 28, 2014 13:09:42 GMT 10
All logical people do not believe in the supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 29, 2014 8:47:35 GMT 10
All logical people do not believe in the supernatural. ...Is an illogical statement. Why is it irrational to believe in something beyond an intellectual level? Why is it illogical to believe in the Unseen? And why is it absurd to believe in something outside of nature (Supernatural)? If your statement isn't unreasonable, indulge me with some reasons. Otherwise, you are just stating an opinion.
|
|