Kevin my response
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:48 am
I do not want to derail that other thread further but I have some comments to a post you made in it. You accused me of attempting to derail a thread in the Celestial you started and I will explain giving evidence that was not the case.
Let’s address a couple of issues here.
Whether or not I was: (a) writing off topic, (b)ad hom fallacy or (c) attempting to derail your thread. And whether I charged you with intellectual dishonesty.
Before I entered the thread you devoted an entire post in response to Chap onyour interpretation of what “atheism” means in contrast to Chap’s.
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=131918&highlight=#131918
If you didn’t want to discuss “atheism” in your thread then why devote an entire post to it? How is it if I write a post addressing your “atheism” post I am now derailing the thread? Are you not familiar with sub-arguments as arguments evolve? They are not off topic.
In your post you stated: “Quite simply, an atheist denies the existence of God. This denial is an idea, a position and a belief. It is more than just a failure to believe something (God exists), it also entails belief (God doesn't exist).”
And this is not a new statement from you, you’ve stated this previously and people have explained to you that all atheists do not deny a God/gods.
I addressed that post, http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=131923&highlight=#131923
and explained that the word atheism does not entail (by necessity)denial of (any) God. There are sub categories of atheism, which entails a denial of God/Gods, but that is not the position of the vast majority of atheists that I’ve encountered including myself.
Nowhere in that post did I charge you with intellectual dishonesty. But to continue to argue a position which has been refuted is dishonest, Kevin.
Your next response to me was riddled with fallacious ad hominems, I believe I pointed out at least 8 of them. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=131968&highlight=#131968
So Kevin my post was on topic, because you made it topic, it was not meant to derail, but you attempted to derail by responding to me with excessive fallacious ad homs instead of staying on the sub argument topic. And my post dealt entirely on-topic, there was no fallacious ad hom.
No kevin I’m not a victim, I can choose to engage you or not. I am only pointing out to you the reasons you are a worthless, despicable, intellectually dishonest person to discuss with and hence a waste of time..because nothing fruitful can develop in discussion with you when you are into fallacious game playing argumentation.
You don’t attribute to me anything I haven’t said? ..how about “Marg looked up something the ancient pagans said, and by that authority, says she can totally turn our understanding of the word on its head.”
My source was the Catholic Encyclopedia, no where did I say I looked up ancient pagans. It’s quite obvious Kevin (and the Catholic Encyclopedia is a respected source to you I would hope, … that conceptually to individuals who hold particular God beliefs, those who don’t share remotely similar God beliefss may appear to be atheists. And in fact the encyclopedia mentioned that was how Christians appeared to Pagans…as atheists.
Think of some of the variety of God beliefs, a) One god/many gods, b) One god with super powers, all knowing, all powerful and all good/ or a God not all powerful,)all knowing, c) a God which created the universe/ a God which didn’t create the universe (ie. Buddha ), d) an interfering sort of God/a non interfering one (deism). These are examples of very dissimilar sorts of Gods.
I honestly own up to the fact that I am atheist, I reject all God claims. You on the other hand hold a unique God belief, but appear unwilling to own up to the fact that you hold a particular God belief that others who although they may consider themselves theists don’t share beliefs remotely similar to yours. You are an atheist of the theistic claims to God’s you do not share remotely similar beliefs of.
In closing Kevin I have spent at least 10 years on the net reading discussions addressing religion. And in all that time I have seen few as intellectually dishonest as you are.
Kevin wrote:Oh, go cry us a river marg.
You're the one who went to the celestial forum where I had tried to start a cordial discussion with sethbag, and invaded it with your rhetoric about me being "intellectually dishonest" when you have never once demonstrated any dishonesty on my part.
Let’s address a couple of issues here.
Whether or not I was: (a) writing off topic, (b)ad hom fallacy or (c) attempting to derail your thread. And whether I charged you with intellectual dishonesty.
Before I entered the thread you devoted an entire post in response to Chap onyour interpretation of what “atheism” means in contrast to Chap’s.
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=131918&highlight=#131918
If you didn’t want to discuss “atheism” in your thread then why devote an entire post to it? How is it if I write a post addressing your “atheism” post I am now derailing the thread? Are you not familiar with sub-arguments as arguments evolve? They are not off topic.
In your post you stated: “Quite simply, an atheist denies the existence of God. This denial is an idea, a position and a belief. It is more than just a failure to believe something (God exists), it also entails belief (God doesn't exist).”
And this is not a new statement from you, you’ve stated this previously and people have explained to you that all atheists do not deny a God/gods.
I addressed that post, http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=131923&highlight=#131923
and explained that the word atheism does not entail (by necessity)denial of (any) God. There are sub categories of atheism, which entails a denial of God/Gods, but that is not the position of the vast majority of atheists that I’ve encountered including myself.
Nowhere in that post did I charge you with intellectual dishonesty. But to continue to argue a position which has been refuted is dishonest, Kevin.
Your next response to me was riddled with fallacious ad hominems, I believe I pointed out at least 8 of them. http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=131968&highlight=#131968
So Kevin my post was on topic, because you made it topic, it was not meant to derail, but you attempted to derail by responding to me with excessive fallacious ad homs instead of staying on the sub argument topic. And my post dealt entirely on-topic, there was no fallacious ad hom.
Now you want to pretend you're some kind of victim here, just because I poke fun at your ridiculous declarations of what's "logical"?
No kevin I’m not a victim, I can choose to engage you or not. I am only pointing out to you the reasons you are a worthless, despicable, intellectually dishonest person to discuss with and hence a waste of time..because nothing fruitful can develop in discussion with you when you are into fallacious game playing argumentation.
You don't know what's logical, and I think it is important to point that out when you start ranting. If you continue to be embarrassed by your own comments, then maybe you should start thinking before you make them. Don't take it out on me. I don't attribute anything to you that you haven't said, and you know it. So don't give me this crap about context. You said "logically" everyone is an atheist, and I think you're now beginning to realize how moronic that comment was. Live and learn.
You don’t attribute to me anything I haven’t said? ..how about “Marg looked up something the ancient pagans said, and by that authority, says she can totally turn our understanding of the word on its head.”
My source was the Catholic Encyclopedia, no where did I say I looked up ancient pagans. It’s quite obvious Kevin (and the Catholic Encyclopedia is a respected source to you I would hope, … that conceptually to individuals who hold particular God beliefs, those who don’t share remotely similar God beliefss may appear to be atheists. And in fact the encyclopedia mentioned that was how Christians appeared to Pagans…as atheists.
Think of some of the variety of God beliefs, a) One god/many gods, b) One god with super powers, all knowing, all powerful and all good/ or a God not all powerful,)all knowing, c) a God which created the universe/ a God which didn’t create the universe (ie. Buddha ), d) an interfering sort of God/a non interfering one (deism). These are examples of very dissimilar sorts of Gods.
I honestly own up to the fact that I am atheist, I reject all God claims. You on the other hand hold a unique God belief, but appear unwilling to own up to the fact that you hold a particular God belief that others who although they may consider themselves theists don’t share beliefs remotely similar to yours. You are an atheist of the theistic claims to God’s you do not share remotely similar beliefs of.
In closing Kevin I have spent at least 10 years on the net reading discussions addressing religion. And in all that time I have seen few as intellectually dishonest as you are.