Constantly untangling your lies, distortions and dodges is tiresome. You are a waste of time; nothing more then a tenacious, long winded troll.
I prefer to spend time conversing with people of integrity.
Thought For The New Year
- Thread starter cammerfe
- Start date
Constantly untangling your lies, distortions and dodges is tiresome. You are a waste of time; nothing more then a tenacious, long winded troll.
I prefer to spend time conversing with people of integrity.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Speaking as a sociologist, there is no sign of any society, any time or anywhere, that hasn't demonstrated a belief in God (or gods). I'm no expert on Scandinavia, but what little reading I've done on the area suggests that what's evident is a tendency toward a lack of organized religion in the society. Individuals still fall into the agnostic or atheist brackets.
KS
So, you don't have anything - too bad. I was really looking forward to adding this tidbit of yours - that agnostic includes 'null set' to my other discussions. It is a fascinating thought, but without any source to back it up, it sort of just dangles out there, sad and alone...
Oh, KS - you are are sociologist - cool.... Actually there are godless societies - few and perhaps very far between, especially since the expansion of 'civilization'
For instance, there is a nomadic group of people in the Govi Basin of Mongolia that is entirely without a god/creation/higher being/'why am I here' concept. They absolutely have no concept whatsoever of God(s).. They have been used for studies on this - and have come up more than once when I have discussed this with others.
So would they be agnostic? We have always said no. Without any concept of God, they have no idea of God, so agnostic really doesn't work. And certainly labeling them as atheists would be completely wrong.
What would you think they are KS, and why?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Moving the goalposts followed by negative proof and straw man.
Last three words describe you to a 'T.'
Definition of a troll (Edited for accuracy):
1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory
Shag is the one that claims including null set in agnostic... I just want to see where that idea came from.
So, do you think it is time yet Foss - I thought I would give shag some more time to find his source... mostly because I am really interested, and when we go out celebrating/commiserating this evening watching election results, I could regale them with this fascinating tidbit regarding a new way to look at the concept of agnostic.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Being a chatterbox doesn't make you the victor. I know you think it does. Your arguments get routinely discredited, and yet you ignore the accurate criticism and continue as though you are a 5 year old with her fingers in her ears saying LALALALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
So, you believe that shag has answered the agnostic/no concept of god question Foss? in #194 you pretty much gave the thread to shag - so you should be able to come up with his answer - right?
Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don't have brains enough to be honest.
-Benjamin Franklin
Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another
-Homer
It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead
-Thomas Jefferson
-Benjamin Franklin
Hateful to me as the gates of Hades is that man who hides one thing in his heart and speaks another
-Homer
It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead
-Thomas Jefferson
So, still got nothing – huh shag? You do this again and again, when confronted to actually come up with source that supports your ideas, you hide… People aren’t fooled shag – and as it happens more and more, your credibility just fades away.
One more chance-How can you 'not take a position' on something that doesn't exist within your frame of reference?
Ah, battle of the quotes now…
“It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.”
Bill Watterson
“Show me the money”
Cuba Gooding Jr. - Jerry Macquire
“Where’s the beef”
Clara Peller – Wendy’s commercial
One more chance-How can you 'not take a position' on something that doesn't exist within your frame of reference?
Ah, battle of the quotes now…
“It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept.”
Bill Watterson
“Show me the money”
Cuba Gooding Jr. - Jerry Macquire
“Where’s the beef”
Clara Peller – Wendy’s commercial
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually, my AB in Sociology came in 1968 and I've never used it as an earning tool. Can you give me a cite regarding this group you speak of? I'd like to find out more about them. And just offhand, even such items as cave paintings suggest a belief in the existence of an outside, superior power. There are certainly those in our own society who demonstrate the worship of money. It's not much of a stretch to think of money as their 'god'.
KS
even after trying to bring up the metaphysical, you still have not proven a god exists.
abstract thoughts can be interesting, if they lead to verifiable results.
having abstract thoughts does not prove a higher power.
abstract thoughts can be interesting, if they lead to verifiable results.
having abstract thoughts does not prove a higher power.
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
If there is no God, and we all descended from random mutations, then all of us, our thoughts and actions, are just random movements of molecules and neurons.
Based on that assumption, how can you know that your perfectly random set of opinions is correct?
The only person making that argument in this thread is YOU.
You really have no clue what is being discussed, do you.
You should get this quote tattooed on your forehead.
it is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion
-Edmund Burke
you're the one claiming existence. the burden is on you to prove it. this is directly from YOUR link.
you obviously have no clue, do you.
and now as with foxpaws starts the quotes. your a ridiculous little man.
I am not arguing something exists (and this debate is not about what I believe, as much as you want to make it about that).
You are the one rejecting metaphysics without a justification (or even a reasonable understanding of what metaphysics is).
You are the one assuming and imposing a materialist standard without justification.
You are dodging. Everyone knows you are dodging.
no shag, i said god doesn't exist. you started the whole metaphysics thing.
i said prove god exists.
you said the burden is on me, and put up a link trying to prove this.
i point out that it says the burden is on the claim of existence.
now your shifting.
the metaphysics is secondary and has nothing to do with the original arguement.
and where do i reject the metaphysical just because it is metaphysical?
no where.
i reject that which has no evidence.
that has always been my claim.
i said prove god exists.
you said the burden is on me, and put up a link trying to prove this.
i point out that it says the burden is on the claim of existence.
now your shifting.
the metaphysics is secondary and has nothing to do with the original arguement.
and where do i reject the metaphysical just because it is metaphysical?
no where.
i reject that which has no evidence.
that has always been my claim.
You ALWAYS say God doesn't exist. That is an affirmative statement that has to logically be proven; something you can only avoid doing, as you actions in this thread show.
Lying and revising the history of this thread is exceedingly desperate.
Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest.
-Benjamin Franklin
Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true.
-Diane Arbus
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Give it up, hrmwrm. Now you're resorting to lying.
For the millionth time - you cannot back up this claim without absolute knowledge, something you do not have. You're exercising at least as much faith in your belief as I am. That is irrefutable, despite how many times you deny it. You can sidestep it, ignore it, pretend to answer it, or just plain name call, all of which you've done in this thread, but you CANNOT refute it.
try again. as stated above from SHAG'S link, the emphasis is on those who claim existence.
for the millionth time, put up the evidence.
then prove me wrong. otherwise i'm right. no concrete evidence exists.
it is a preponderance of the evidence(in this case, lack of it).
for the millionth time, put up the evidence.
what, that there is no evidence of god?
then prove me wrong. otherwise i'm right. no concrete evidence exists.
no, i'm not claiming something exists for which there is no evidence. there is no FAITH or BELIEF.
it is a preponderance of the evidence(in this case, lack of it).
prove what? as you so eloquently pointed out in your link as to acceptable arguements, those claimng something exists must prove existance. not the other way around.
you cannot claim there is something without proving it.
saying you cannot DISPROVE it, is not an acceptable arguement by YOUR OWN STANDARDS.
so, when you want to stop lying and decieving and just generally arguing nonsense is up to you.