OK, so who else is *** with Sam, ...

[Anti-Flag]

Anti-Flag those posts have nothing to do with nazism or that extremist moderation techniques you are referring to.

I'd like to see you try and quote that particular post with those as my words. It's all in this thread, in writing, so if I said it then it shouldn't be too hard right? Try it.

 

[S.A.M.]

See above post, it's been pointed out to you several times in those threads exactly where you're being dishonest, and you know full well he's not just soar about you deleting his flames, he's tired of arguing against you while you blindly continue. Another post another lie, I take back what I said earlier, I do indeed give you too much credit.

Why ? Because I do not agree with what an atheist believes about his beliefs? :roflmao:

I'm a Popper fan, so falsifiability is an important scientific construct to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

[Exhumed]

See above post, it's been pointed out to you several times in those threads exactly where you're being dishonest, and you know full well he's not just soar about you deleting his flames, he's tired of arguing against you while you blindly continue. Another post another lie, I take back what I said earlier, I do indeed give you too much credit.

He said:

Sam, you're loading the terms and being dishonest again; atheism is not a belief system.

SAM responded perfectly reasonably, imo.

IMO, agnostcism is not a belief system, but atheism and especially militant atheism or anti-theist atheism most certainly is.

When you are targeting people because they believe something that you don't believe and neither of the party has evidence for their stand, they are both belief systems.

Besides all the atheists here are clearly defending their right not to believe in God. Its not equivalent to not being a stamp collector unless those guys are forming a club and wearing a T shirt and campaigning against stamp collectors.

The claim of dishonesty is far fetched, and a distraction to the discussion.

SAM seemed interested in having an actual discussion, which is apparently taboo :shrug:

 

[draqon]

Anti-Flag lets face it, you and phlogistician are launching a personal all out war on SAM just because she is a girl. Yeah thats right and she is not just a girl but a Muslim girl. And you don't like that don't you? Well Sciforums is not for personal wars!

 

[Avatar]

Anti-Flag lets face it, you and phlogistician are launching a personal all out war on SAM just because she is a girl. Yeah thats right and she is not just a girl but a Muslim girl. And you don't like that don't you? Well Sciforums is not for personal wars!

Says a person with a personal grudge against phlog.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Those are my opinions and they are based on the information I have given to justify them. Sorry to say, opinions can be biased.

Your misrepresented information, bias, and incorrect paraphrasing of others has been corrected numourous times but you ignore this, which leads to one of two conclusions. A. You're ignorant. B. You're being dishonest.
I honestly don't care which it is, I, personally, found it all laughable, especially your critique of a book you admit to having not read!
For these reasons I've read those pages but not bothered getting involved as I would get a more productive "discussion" from a brick wall, I believe phlogistician found that out the hard way and I entirely understand his complaints.

 

[greenberg]

I'm entitled to my opinion.

Not if we are to take your religion seriously.

As someone who professes to know The Only Truth, the One and Only True God, you cannot rightfully revert back to "matters of opinion". No absolutist, objectivist or creatonist theist can.

A person who says "I know The Truth. But this is just my opinion." is being intellectually dishonest.

People who declare they believe in a creationist god, The One and Only True God, thereby imply that they are superior to everyone else who does not believe in that same god.

Many people are seeking The Truth. When someone declares or implies to know it, this person should be ready to be questioned and tested.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Why ? Because I do not agree with what an atheist believes about his beliefs? :roflmao:

You fail to understand someone else's beliefs or lack thereof, after having been told by those people exactly what those beliefs are, and yet in the same breath complain people do not understand theism, pot, kettle, black. If you don't understand that you're a lost cause.

 

[S.A.M.]

Your misrepresented information, bias, and incorrect paraphrasing of others has been corrected numourous times but you ignore this, which leads to one of two conclusions. A. You're ignorant. B. You're being dishonest.
I honestly don't care which it is, I, personally, found it all laughable, especially your critique of a book you admit to having not read!
For these reasons I've read those pages but not bothered getting involved as I would get a more productive "discussion" from a brick wall, I believe phlogistician found that out the hard way and I entirely understand his complaints.

Since I was rebutting arguments I have heard from Dawkins himself I don't see the disconnect. You are free to stay away from any discussion you choose to.

Besides, as I said, I was rebutting the opinions of a man who did not consider it necessary to study any of the religions he was venting against. In short, I was extending to him the same courtesy he extended to me, with the added courtesy of at least having heard him express his opinions before rebutting them.

 

[Avatar]

Many people are seeking The Truth. When someone declares or implies to know it, this person should be ready to be questioned and tested.

Agreed! Even Buddha told he didn't knew that.

 

[S.A.M.]

You fail to understand someone else's beliefs or lack thereof, after having been told by those people exactly what those beliefs are, and yet in the same breath complain people do not understand theism, pot, kettle, black. If you don't understand that you're a lost cause.

I get the same arguments from Muslim fundies. :shrug:

 

[ElectricFetus]

Well I'm going to read the evidence and get back to you all with my unbiased judgment as soon as I'm done eating this boiled egg.

 

[Anti-Flag]

He said:


SAM responded perfectly reasonably, imo.


The claim of dishonesty is far fetched, and a distraction to the discussion.

SAM seemed interested in having an actual discussion, which is apparently taboo :shrug:

I suggest you read the entire conversation(s), in both threads, it's beyond just that one snippet. It's been noted before that atheism has no system, the reasons why are in those threads but she persists with her nonsense. It's a lot of reading, but it's worth it.
EDIT: Just to be clear I want you to read for yourself, like everyone.

 

[S.A.M.]

Many people are seeking The Truth. When someone declares or implies to know it, this person should be ready to be questioned and tested.

Then we have to say, what is the Truth?

My opinion is Truth for me.

 

[draqon]

The truth is what supermoderator says the truth it

 

[greenberg]

You fail to understand someone else's beliefs or lack thereof, after having been told by those people exactly what those beliefs are, and yet in the same breath complain people do not understand theism, pot, kettle, black. If you don't understand that you're a lost cause.

For many Abrahamic creationist theists, to understand someone who is not of the same religion,
is tantamount to betraying their religion.

If a Christian or Muslim or Jew would really make an effort to understand someone who is not Christian, Muslim, or Jew,
the Christian or Muslim or Jew would thereby betray Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

Because to really understand someone else's belief system, one has to be willing to at least temprorarily give up one's own belief system.

 

[S.A.M.]

I suggest you read the entire conversation(s), in both threads, it's beyond just that one snippet. It's been noted before that atheism has no system, the reasons why are in those threads but she persists with her nonsense. It's a lot of reading, but it's worth it.
EDIT: Just to be clear I want you to read for yourself, like everyone.

It does not matter what you say.

As far as I'm concerned if its not falsifiable its a belief.

 

[Exhumed]

I suggest you read the entire conversation(s), in both threads, it's beyond just that one snippet. It's been noted before that atheism has no system, the reasons why are in those threads but she persists with her nonsense. It's a lot of reading, but it's worth it.
EDIT: Just to be clear I want you to read for yourself, like everyone.

I already skimmed it and missed it. TBH, I find it boring, and I really don't want to look again. Particularly since it seems like you are complaining about semantics.

Atheism as a whole has no system, I agree. There are certain groups of atheists who do have systems.

 

[Exhumed]

It does not matter what you say.

As far as I'm concerned if its not falsifiable its a belief.

I think that is undeniable.

 

[Anti-Flag]

Anti-Flag lets face it, you and phlogistician are launching a personal all out war on SAM just because she is a girl. Yeah thats right and she is not just a girl but a Muslim girl. And you don't like that don't you? Well Sciforums is not for personal wars!

Don't stop now you're hilarious. Read avatars post. Not that it's any of your business but I have no problem with several women on these boards, not to mention I have had muslim friends in my life with no issues. I couldn't give a shit what race, religion, or skintone you or anyone else has.
Sciforums is not a place for blatant dishonesty such as that displayed by you above.