seriously!?

[wynn]

But wait: to point in that manner would require a sense of superiority.

I am expressing my frustration over how your sense of your superiority impedes discussion.

You keep trying to turn these discussions into debates, you keep resorting to unjustified ad hominems as you take for granted the very things which are under discussion.

When I go along with that, it is simply in frustration, hence all those rhetorical enlightenment remarks.

 

[wynn]

Boom. Lawyered!

She won't reply.

Caught in a false prophecy!

 

[wynn]

It's a funny thing: a person can sit back and wax philosophical (literally) but when push comes to shove, and the question boils down to basics (this is English, we apply words to advance a proposition or give proof, therefore this is about reason) *poof*. No answer.

With all due respect, there is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Balerion]

Caught in a false prophecy!

I only did that because I knew you couldn't resist.

Boom. False Prophet-ized!

 

[wellwisher]

it's simply unreasonable to doubt Jesus's existence, considering the amount of people -of human history- who believe in his existence.

The truth of the matter is atheism has been around as long as christianity, if not longer. But it has never had natural selection on its side. It is sort of stuck as a minor subspecies, that lacks selective advantage. This opposite is true for Christianity with history showing natural selection.

According to evolutionary theory, breeding rates also reflect natural selection, with religion promoting breeding and atheism promoting abortion and birth control. Even at the unconscious level, nature has decided what is natural for selection, and what is unnatural and needs to be aborted.

I am applying evolution, which is accepted dogma of the atheists, which they don't realize is not flattering to them.

As far as Jesus or not, this belief did create a selective advantage for many humans as demonstrated by history. This was both as a whole and its many parts like England, France, Spain, Germany, as well as the USA.

The biggest atheism experiment of all times, was Stalinism, which did not work out too well, since atheism is paranoid and lacks tolerance. Unnatural selection was given a try, via force, but it self aborted due to natural selection. Once the old Soviet union was broken up ,the paranoid atheists dethroned, and religion restored, then there was prosperity. Now natural selection is natural again.

 

[AlexG]

According to evolutionary theory, breeding rates also reflect natural selection, with religion promoting breeding and atheism promoting abortion and birth control. Even at the unconscious level, nature has decided what is natural for selection, and what is unnatural and needs to be aborted.

So according to you, atheism or the belief in The Big Magician In The Sky is a genetic trait?

Once the old Soviet union was broken up ,the paranoid atheists dethroned, and religion restored, then there was prosperity

Seriously!?

:shrug:

 

[Arioch]

@wellwisher --

Meaning only the tiniest amount of disrespect, given that you demonstrably don't understand evolutionary theory at all how can you hope to apply it to anything? Especially to atheism which you doggedly refuse to understand. Sounds like you can really only be wrong here.

 

[Aqueous Id]

With all due respect, there is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Sorry to hear that. Is it treatable?

I was going to send a card, but I couldn't find anything appropriate. The "Narcissist" section just had these cheesy little mirrors, with the opening of Desiderata on the back, in a gaudy calligraphy. I wasn't sure if it might send you into remission.

Hope this will do. Cheer up: the folks here will try their best to put you in your place. Let me know if I can help.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I am expressing my frustration over how your sense of your superiority impedes discussion.

If you had displayed transparency until now, I might take that as a retreat into sincerity. My intuition says otherwise. As for impeding anything, all I have done is pulled into traffic, partly pushed by the flow and partly trying to get somewhere. If your statement is sincere, it may simply reflect a kind of intransigence, that you yourself are so sure of how things are and how people should think, that you have no choice but to take away this impression. That would be a deeper line of inquiry, though, and I am even more doubtful that you would entertain it.

You keep trying to turn these discussions into debates, you keep resorting to unjustified ad hominems as you take for granted the very things which are under discussion.

That's quite list of indictments. Again, it's unclear whether this is a retreat into sincerity or a ploy. It would seem to me that if I have to answer to charges instead of the OP, then an ad hom must be in play. So maybe you can appreciate that I note the irony in that. As for "discussion v debate", I'm not even sure what you mean by that. This could just be your reaction to a situation in which someone disagrees with you. On the other hand, when I read something that jumps out at me as a fallacy, I naturally react with a counterposition. I suppose if that squelches an idea you wanted to pursue, you might feel a need to lodge the complaint that I'm overriding the discussion. My question is: to what end does a discussion pursue a false premise as if it is assumed true (other than hypothesis testing, I mean)? In other words, it's a de minimis position you're taking. As far as taking things for granted which are under discussion, again, if the premise if fallacious, then it would seem that the thing I am taking for granted is the stated goal of this forum, namely, to avoid fallacy that hijacks the quality of discourse, so that the threads will continue to invite informed discussion. To that end, I can't make sense of your gripe.

When I go along with that, it is simply in frustration, hence all those rhetorical enlightenment remarks.

Fair enough. But the question remains open: why become frustrated over contributors' resistance to fallacy?

This is where we keep hitting a brick wall. :wallbang:

 

[Aqueous Id]

The truth of the matter is atheism has been around as long as christianity, if not longer. But it has never had natural selection on its side. It is sort of stuck as a minor subspecies, that lacks selective advantage. This opposite is true for Christianity with history showing natural selection.

According to evolutionary theory, breeding rates also reflect natural selection, with religion promoting breeding and atheism promoting abortion and birth control. Even at the unconscious level, nature has decided what is natural for selection, and what is unnatural and needs to be aborted.

I am applying evolution, which is accepted dogma of the atheists, which they don't realize is not flattering to them.

As far as Jesus or not, this belief did create a selective advantage for many humans as demonstrated by history. This was both as a whole and its many parts like England, France, Spain, Germany, as well as the USA.

The biggest atheism experiment of all times, was Stalinism, which did not work out too well, since atheism is paranoid and lacks tolerance. Unnatural selection was given a try, via force, but it self aborted due to natural selection. Once the old Soviet union was broken up ,the paranoid atheists dethroned, and religion restored, then there was prosperity. Now natural selection is natural again.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

[Michael]

No, dude, not even close. He's the only religious founder from antiquity who is actually attested by contemporary sources. There is literally no doubt he existed.

You're also wrong about Mohammed being used on coins as a title for Jesus. That's simply not true. As usual, you're trying to pass off half-remembered third-hand information as fact.

Let's keep it simple: there is zero contemporary evidence Mohammad existed. None. Zilch.


If you have it, post it.

 

[Michael]

No, dude, not even close. He's the only religious founder from antiquity who is actually attested by contemporary sources. There is literally no doubt he existed.

I wonder where we would be if everyone simply accepted what the group thought. We'd live on a flat earth in the center of the universe, probably.

 

[keith1]

An individual that is highly intelligent has the ability to think as an individual.

"Crowd-sense", "Crowd-speak", or "Crowd-control", can be reasonably seen to use less brain-cell activity to accomplish.

History...one would have to be there...and swim the media BS ever accumulating, the further passing of time.

Lemmings are a large orderly crowd with a firm purposeful demeanor.

 

[spidergoat]

If you have the evidence provide it. As it stands there is no contemporary evidence Mohammad existed.
None.
The word Mohammad was used on Syrian Christian coins as a Title for Jesus. That good evidence Mohammad was a word was quite common, so much so it was stamped on coins, and later this word was choose as the name for a fictional protagonist in a new foundation politico-religious myth.

The word is contemporaneous, not contemporary. Contemporary would be modern evidence, contemporaneous is evidence from that time. And we can debate this in another thread, but there are numerous biographies about him. He was involved in campaigns of war that people wrote about, he is as historical a figure as Alexander the Great.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

it's simply unreasonable to doubt Jesus's existence, considering the amount of people -of human history- who believe in his existence.

till we create a time machine to expose the myth of jesus, it's pretty dumb not to believe in him, and by dumb i mean preeeeeety dumb, uh, pardon the frankness.

You have made two objective claims but you are relying on subjective terms. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you first have to clearly and objectively define "unreasonable" and "dumb".

 

[Balerion]

Yeah, I'm not surprised. You're clearly uneducated on this matter, so your resorting to an emoticon is expected. Clearly your words fail you.

Instead of pretending you know something, do some actual reading. Here's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

 

[wynn]

As far as taking things for granted which are under discussion, again, if the premise if fallacious, then it would seem that the thing I am taking for granted is the stated goal of this forum, namely, to avoid fallacy that hijacks the quality of discourse, so that the threads will continue to invite informed discussion. To that end, I can't make sense of your gripe.

Of course you can't ...

Fair enough. But the question remains open: why become frustrated over contributors' resistance to fallacy?

Geez, when you put it that way!

 

[Aqueous Id]

Of course you can't ...

Geez, when you put it that way!

So much for sincerity.

 

[Rhaedas]

Yeah, I'm not surprised. You're clearly uneducated on this matter, so your resorting to an emoticon is expected. Clearly your words fail you.

Instead of pretending you know something, do some actual reading. Here's a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad

That agrees with him. None of the sources for biographies are within centuries of when he lived. The oldest is the actual Qur'an, but just like Jesus and the bible that has to be discounted, because of course it says he existed, otherwise it'd be pointless.

 

[wynn]

So much for sincerity.

When one party (in this case, you), tries to get the upper hand over the other, there can be only a debate, a competition, but never a discussion.

:shrug: