That can be also said of your arguments in the mentioned thread. i.e. on lots of occasions when you're asked to deliver a secular argument and you fail to produce it, you will just present another comment to diverge from the topic at hand, or at least I feel that way about your posts.
The only times I refuse to engage in a discussion is when I am threatened with irrelevancies based on lack of knowledge, which might be firmly based on mental sloth or sheer stubborn reluctance to research the subject due to biased preconceptions. Since such attitudes, will swamp me, I am forced to discard them as unworthy of a response. Which they are.
I know that we do not possess the ultimate codex of wisdom, and even though the gargoyles at Ultima do, we're more... prone to failure, but ok. Tell me: How are your many talks to God and many studies to the Bible and your theology classes, sociology classes and anthropology classes - or thesis - going? Because, honestly, that goes the same way back to you. I suggest that next time you make a new thread, you insert the following advice:
WARNING: EXPERTS THREAD ONLY. KEEP OUT, WANNABE.
Or:
WARNING: BELIEVERS THREAD ONLY. KEEP OUT, HEATHEN.
The conclusions you claim to have reached are not justified by my commentary so I won't waste my time responding to them. I suggest that you slowly reread my posts in order to really address the real issues involved and not the ones you imagine or perhaps prefer to be involved.
That's not really my style, but yes, I tend to do that, so, I apologize. But I won't refrain from doing it, if that's what you want to know.
I don't recall asking to know anything.
I haven't seen many, but they will always happen. People agree and group, specially against unreasonable people. There's an attempt to reason, then an attempt to reason by outnumbering, then the thread dies, eventually, or derails into trolling.
True-reason why one has to be selective in responding.
snip
What do you mean? That we ignore the scientific credentials of believers? yes, when it comes down to explaining creationism, which is just blatant self chosen ignorance.
That's a matter of opinion and debatable.
'
'
The religious theories about it are just hollow, can't be proven unless god himself comes down from celestia and shows his powers. While he won't do that, I'm grouping with the skeptical fellows, who are at least trying to work with reason.
The abiogenesis can't be proven unless you show it to me in a tank of water. Can you? I'm very skeptical as well-notice? Or will you now just chalk up my skepticism to ignorance?
BTW
Please don't refer me to the coming together of of lifeless molecules.
I might make a redundant comment now and then.
Where? Can you point it? Common logic as common, not educated folks have, such as myths?
There are scientists who don't share your views.
Well, just point them, the contradictions, I think it's pretty valid that you do so, in order to organize the thoughts of the nonbelievers.
Glad that you see the purpose behind the posdts on interpretational rules.
In fact, when I have such problems and people point it to me,
I'll rethink what I've said and maybe even apologize
A very uncommon but very noble and decent thing to do.
Same as you do. The Bible, the morals of the Christians, they're all a bunch of frauds.
Jesus didn't consider frauds Christians. Why do you?
I do not admire fallacy, it's true, and I try not to use it, but that's also used in several arguments we read everyday on forums that discuss religion.
Religious people aren't immune to illogical thinking.
Can it be used? Holy fart, I thought to be equivocated meant something else altogether.
Not equivocated. Equivocation as a fallacy. Equivocation is the use of a word in a different meaning from the one that the other person is using in order to mislead.
Dude, you need to believe to comprehend many things you do. But there's just no logic in the answers that lead to those that the priests/bible/whatever want to pass down our throat.
You mean pass down the throat of anyone demanding to be viewed as a Christian.
It is hard to understand why someone doesn't accept gay marriage if it wont harm himself,
Easy, their sacred text condemns it. It's either going against their sacred text in order to please gays, or faitfully and respectfully adhereing to the sacred text in order to please God. That's the way they see it. I find nothing difficult to understand about that.
--or to accept assisted suicide, or euthanasia, as tools at human disposal.
I don't oppose euthanasia. Neither do I find any biblical principle that would prohibit passive Euthanasia. However, I'm sure you agree that there are situations when Euthanasia can be justifiably viewed as a crime.
It's not asking you to do it - it's allowing it to be there for you in case you change your mind or we can prove godlings doesn't exist, and if they do, they don't give a kwack about us.
That's totally irrelevant to the present situation. Right?
Is this a compendium that you're making, of the possible ways we can disqualify your answers?
My answers are just as prone to be disqualified as anyone else's if they ignore the commonly- accepted principles required for legitimate biblical interpretation.
I mean, that's a thing, but we'll never agree because we are prone to accept logical thoughts, and faith is just illogical.
This is not a matter of the logical versus the illogical. It's a matter of what is or isn't said
in the Bible.
BTW
Actually, if I had your concept of faith I'd consider it illogical too. However, your concept of faith obviously isn't the biblical one.
Pretty much like love. You love but there's no reason for it. You believe, with no reason for it. That's where you'll fail every time: You can't explain the logic of something without a logic point of view. It's like mathematics and crap.
Not at all! When we love there should be is a good reason for it. Otherwise we will become victims of infatuation and will pay for it later. Same with my religious beliefs. Our belief in ID is founded firmly on inductive reasoning. Neither are we helplessly unable to give a logical response for our belief as you would describe us. Not a response that I believe will convince those hell-bent on being atheists of course. That would be an unreasonable expectation. But a well thought out logical response nevertheless.
But that gay marriage thread was really burning, and it was nice. Peace, man!
I usually don't involve myself in such matters and only became enmeshed in that thread due to the gays' insistent, illogical, concerted attack on the Bible.
