marg wrote:Schmo sorry.....not interested in explaining.
OK, then. As long as you no longer express any kind of shock or disappointment in people giving you a hard time about the way you post, I can accept this.
marg wrote:Schmo sorry.....not interested in explaining.
marg wrote: What you'd normally say something would you?
marg wrote: I don't think you would..which is one reason I have no interest in explaining anything. Carry on as you have been doing.
marg wrote: And when have I ever expressed shock at how I've been treated? Disappointment? I'm not sure that's the word.
marg wrote:This board is like I'm gawking at a car crash..I just keep looking...unfortunately I've been doing it for a hell of a long time.
marg wrote: Schmo
Very quickly ..because I've got to get off today. ..there are different levels to consider. There is this actual thread and an evaluation of it as to how the discussion was conducted..was it carried on with intellectual honesty, what was the critical thinking in it like. So that's one level. On that level you said nothing.
marg wrote: Then there is another level...involving me and Stak and it's why this thread came up. This thread was used as an example by Stak for why he's justified in being insulting to me. So this all started in the thread Stak set up to malign DCP. So a 3rd party has said something, he's said that Stak wasn't justified based on his perspective in his insults and in fact I was right on one point and Stak was wrong. If you'll look in the thread on that point, I received all sorts of insults when I made it, and yet Stak was the one wrong.
marg wrote: I'm not assuming at this point that Tarski the 3rd party necessarily appreciates the entire thread and argument. But Stak hasn't acknowledged Tarski's comments so far. If Tarski looks into the thread and finds my argument well warranted what does that say about Stak's justification for insulting others to excess.
marg wrote: What does it say about his thread to malign DCP..if he doesn't use intellectual honesty and conduct himself with respect towards others in discussion.
marg wrote: You have said nothing on this.
marg wrote:I suspect because you yourself wish to malign DCP.
Besides, you have no problem taking Tarski's word for it when he tells you he agrees with you on some remote point, but I've noticed you've ignored the vast majority of people who completely agree with Stak on his assessment of DCP's "work." What's up with that?
Dawkin's own argument is a simple modus ponens.
A --> -G, A, .:. -G
If the ARGUMENT of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion- the GOD HYPOTHESIS- is untenable (that means NEGATION).