Richard Dawkins on The Late Late show

Sam Vimes

Kipperhell wrote: »

1) Ignore what the other person says and repeat yourself
2) Listen to what they say selectively ignore parts of what they say and respond to only those portions you want/can reply to
3) Make an accusation of what the other person said by either exaggeration or misrepresentation
4) Belittle the person at any given opportunity

This is exactly the problem. It's nothing to do with disagreeing with me. I and many others spend time and effort writing carefully thought out and as far as we're concerned air tight responses to Jakkass' claims and he ignores what you've said and continues to make the same arguments later on, occasionally with a quip dismissing the point that doesn't actually dismiss it at all, eg "you weren't comparing like with like", as if not having the safety of the white house makes it impossible to lie to support your beliefs, and the quip ignored all of the other examples which didn't have such a safety net. And my response pointing out the flaws in the quip was ignored and he just continued saying I wasn't comparing like with like

If you disagree with something, say why you disagree with it and be prepared to defend your argument and if you can't do that, concede the point. It is not acceptable to, for example, ask a question, ignore all the carefully thought out answers and then ask it again. You're going to get the same answers no matter how many times you ask it. It's a logical fallacy known as argument ad nauseum where you keep repeating yourself, ignoring all criticism until you make your opponents nauseous and they can't be bothered talking to you anymore

And you can't use the ad hominem argument that this is just old Sam ranting at you anymore, numerous people are now saying the same thing that I've been saying for months.

Edit:Although you have already dismissed me as ranting without substance in this thread on a topic where everyone was agreeing with me (you just ignored the posts of the people agreeing with me) so maybe you can still say I'm just ranting....

all is violent

The most annoying thing about that clip on his website are the comments below and the idiots on the show. ha!

I don't get this whole oh i've to show you why i'm right even though there's pretty much no chance of you accepting it.

The sooner people stop trying to spread their beliefs or lack there of, the better.

philologos

DeVore wrote: »

Jak, Kdak etc

Could you do me a favour. Could you list these things in order of "proven-ness" in your opinion: (from "most proven" in your opinion, to "least" proven)

1. The Resurrection
2. Relativity
3. Scientology's writings of L Ron Hubard

Just trying to get to the bottom of something...

DeV.

I don't claim that the Resurrection, or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard (straining to see the relevance have been proven absolutely. I never claimed that the Resurrection had been proven absolutely, but I believe it to be strongly indicated for.

My opinion based from most proven for the first, and most strongly indicated for in my belief would obviously be as follows:
1) Relativity
2) Resurrection
3) L. Ron Hubbards writings.

Kipperhell wrote: »

I stupidly went to the hassle of reading the entire post again to see what you were talking about when you said you answered questions. The simple answer is you haven't and avoided many. You definitely have an issue understanding statements as fact or "truth". You stating your intentions doesn't make it so, it doesn't take a complicated conspiracy to suspect you of doing this intentionally. There are two other options of why you are doing this

Kipperhell, what is the point in discussing this? Really. You've claimed that I have ignored other peoples points, when I actually haven't. You've claimed that I actually don't respect any atheist who posts here, despite the fact that I said I have. Do you understand how frustrating this can be to actually deal with? Actually curiously looking at Sam Vimes post (although he has me on ignore), the fallacy of repeating ad nauseum can be due to you.

The problem with atheist argumentation on this forum is the following, and read carefully please:

1) Just because you find something convincing or logical, does not mean the other will find the same thing convincing of logical.

2) There is no burden on anyone else to accept something, just because you have argued it. People are free to discern for themselves on the issue.Questions of further clarification should be welcomed, not huffed at.

3) In heated discussions, often many people will respond to just one. Sometimes it is actually very difficult to get around to make a response to all.

4) If you say certain things on this forum, atheists seem to get hot and bothered for you holding said opinions.

These 4 are the main problems that have arisen as of late. They need to be rectified before theists can come in here and discuss in the future.

Kipperhell wrote: »

It is pretty effective way to argue but not to discuss a point. There has been blame on others for their methods of argument yet why do you think so many posters are only accusing you of ignoring information/questions? That is closer to a conspiracy than anything I have said. I don't care about your intentions other than your method of discussion or lack of.
There are a few techniques one can use to prolong an argument and not enter a discussion

Actually Kipperhell, it's warranted blame considering how smoothly discussions were able to go in the past. I haven't ignored any information, and as for questions, I can't get around every single persons point sometimes if I am the only person responding. That is entirely fair and reasonable.

Kipperhell wrote: »

1) Ignore what the other person says and repeat yourself
2) Listen to what they say selectively ignore parts of what they say and respond to only those portions you want/can reply to
3) Make an accusation of what the other person said by either exaggeration or misrepresentation
4) Belittle the person at any given opportunity

I haven't done 1, or 4.

At points 3, and 2 were warranted.

2) Well people generally only post about what they feel they can comment on. Sometimes sections of a post really don't deal with anything at all, hence why you deal with the parts that actually get somewhere. It's up to the individual poster to discern this, then if anything has been missing it should be raised by the one interested in a respectful tone and manner (which hasn't happened here, infact Sam Vimes resorted to cursing and huffing as a child does).

3) Point is if you have misunderstood a part of my post, I have every right to steer you in the right direction. You've personally done this in my post, claiming that I see the Resurrection as fact, I never said that. I believe the Resurrection to be the truth however, because I find that it is strongly indicated for. There is a difference.

Kipperhell wrote: »

If you want to look back at the thread and look at the questions and statements I put to you and answer them that is fine.

At this stage, given the amount of nonsense that has occurred on this thread. I would prefer not to. I find that it would disrupt the peace of the forum if I were to discuss my opinion here given the way the discussion has been handled so far.

Kipperhell wrote: »

I suspect there will be a long winded response that doesn't answer the questions and a series of the above 4 methods of arguing. I have barely discussed points with you and I see this behaviour in your responses to others. Using the befit of doubt I am allowing for you to be oblivious to this and point it out as a flawed method of discussion.

Kipperhell, you've violated rule number 4 yourself here. Do you really think that if you condascend someone they will enter into dialogue with good faith? It's rather simple, unless you respect me I will not be speaking with you. If you are not genuinely interested in Christianity, I will not be speaking with you from now on.

Kipperhell wrote: »

I will say earlier you did state your belief is not fact but as the discussion continues you use the word true or truth. Here is an explanation of what you are doing there.

Actually, it's rather simple:
Factually truth != Indicated to be truth

Kipperhell wrote: »

Now if you want to claim that you believe the bible is actually fact and contains no false information that is fine but it would be nice to know what the basis is. Most people here appear to be simply saying this is unlikely and requires faith and not evidence where there is this other voice that states it is believed based on logic yet there hasn't been logical explanation. There been an answer and then when that was said to be invalid there was no response.

"logic" - "logical explanation". On these forums this means. "What I believe to be logic" rather than anything else. Someone has told me that I shift the goalposts, however I really don't. I find in discussion with atheists the goal posts shift considerably. If you research this for yourself you will find there is an amasse of logical evidence for the Resurrection. The rejection comes from:
a) Shifting the goalposts
b) Blindness
c) Refusing to read or look up said individuals

Infact look at theopedia for this, and take a consideration of the multimedia on the page concerning the Resurrection of Christ. Then and only then and in respect I will discuss with you on the Resurrection. Somebody already has PMed me in a respectful manner, and I am glad of this.

If you want to discuss Biblical inerrancy, go onto theopedia, or go to the Christianity forum. I won't be discussing it here. If you are on theopedia, listen to the multimedia before posting I'd say.

kdak

DeVore, i dunno if this will answer your q because i havent actually read anything lately that will support my reasons for atheism however what i will say is- yes its in the bible that jesus rose after 3 days and if a catholic sees the bible as reputable source then thats ok but from where I'm standing its like reading something in the sun- yes it may report that swine flu has become a serious issue which is fact and this reporting of fact could make you believe it to be a reputable source in the future (along the same lines as stating jesus existed in the bible- yes it may be fact and that makes the bible seem truthful), however if the same paper says that swine flu is rampant in dublin, its not so true and common sense allows me to choose not to believe it (i.e. the ressurection!) i dunno if that explains my reasoning any clearer or if it just seems like a load of waffle about pigs! and im sorry if it seems like im belittling your religion, as i said i was a practicing catholic so i can see your reasoning.

also gothpunk- i never said you cant explain why they happen, im saying generally you cant prove to someone that you're feeling them, you can say i love you but you can say that when you're not experiencing it as well so, it cant be considered proof. i was pointing out that not everything can be proved but it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. so as scientific and logical as it is to demand proof, just because it cant be provided doesnt dismiss the fact it ever happened.

Dades

I don't think there's anything to be served in keeping this thread open.

Going off topic on a zombie thread is fine if there's a reasonable discussion, but it's clear that things have gone beyond that. It's got too personal to recover.