Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

quote:

---

ote that to substantiate his claim all contracycle needs to do is quote one post where he can show I actually said what he claims I said. If his claim were true it truly would be easy to prove. If his claim is a misrepresentation then he cannot substantiate it, and then if he does not withdraw his claim, he intends to continue to misrepresent my positions.

---

You did so specifically in message 87 of that thread. You repeatedly asserted that sexual selection must be adopted in the ABSENCE of any conceivable functional benefit to hairlessness. And yet, substantive benefits to hairlessness HAVE been conceived, articulated, and researched.This means that in fact you were in violation of:

quote:

---

2 Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

---

As you continually restated your initial assumptions and cavalierly dismissed any theory other than that which you personally favour. It remains the case you have never given a cogent rebuttal of the benefits that many people appear to see in hairlessness, as articulated in the running ape model. The fact that you disagree does not make your argument true; you did not debate in good faith.

Hi Q,I’ve been meaning to reply for ages but stuff always conspired to get in my way. True. There does seem to be only a gnat’s whisker between my position and others who would describe themselves as atheists. This may be partially because I backed into the world of agnosticism from the atheist side of things. I would agree that the ‘there is always doubt’ part of my statements does amount to to *ahem* ‘metaphysical masturbation’ in this respect.The probability of a white bearded omnipotent being knocking on my door and explaining that it planted all of the fossils, rearranged the DNA and messed around with the laws of physics is so miniscule that it doesn’t really deserve thinking about. Emphasising that there is an element of doubt is still an important part of my
position though because it effectively says: I realise that this is indeed the attitude taken by many atheists so it probably comes down to which arbitary label people prefer. I think agnostic best sums up this point of view. I think this is probably where the difference is between us. It is important to be able to separate individual claims by religions and the idea of 'God'. It is true that God has been proffered as an explanation for loads of things in the past, and once it became possible to test these claims they have been discarded because of powerful counter-evidence. I don’t, however, think this history is enough to say that Is it God? is an invalid question.Specific claims have to be tested with specific evidence. I don’t see how evidence debunking a sun-chariot or a global flood can be used to disprove a claim that ‘God’ somehow is involved in the complicated running of the universe (extremely wishy-washy I know but run with it ). If we don’t have the information to test it then the only thing we can do is leave the possibility open and say I don’t know, let’s wait and see.Of course for ‘God’ to be tested in such a way, how he/she/it has an effect on the universe has to be defined properly (that’s another ugly can of worms to open), and the ‘waiting and seeing’ is not an excuse for ‘God-of-the-gaps’ type arguments either. If something cannot be tested (either because it’s too vague or because the data needed is not available) then no conclusions can be made either way, and no actions should be taken on it — it remains a quaint little idea to be filed in the part of my brain labelled That’s nicewhat’s for dinner?.Ooook!Agnosticism’s attack dog

the answer to this is in a new thread I have started to discuss themhttp://EvC Forum: contracycle, clothes, humans, and bare lies. -->EvC Forum: contracycle, clothes, humans, and bare lies.take the issue there and see if you can actually answer it this timeenjoy.

quote:

---

take the issue there and see if you can actually answer it this time

---

So this is the secondm, thread you are bailing on, eh?Your defence of the logic of agnosticism has been dismantled.

RAZD...you have great skills at making a thread look good.Your lack of tactfulness...ie..attacking the person and not the position...is why we take issue. I do it also, and am working on being a nicer guy!

*Knock* *Knock*.....

another falsehood contracycle.as I have stated several times on THIS thread the issue of your failure to substantiate YOUR position is not the topic here.thus I started another topic to pursue this particular failing of YOURS.I have not "bailed" from this topic or the previous one ... it was closed because of YOUR misbehaviorso try again. you failed to substantiate your position last time. you won't because your position is false.I also ask you to substantiate your claim, seeing as you used the word "again" that I bailed on a previous thread when debating with you.enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*25*2005 06:33 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

take a simple steptell contracycle to actually substantiate what he says and see if he can prove me wrongif he can't do that then he needs to be told to stop with the misrepresentationsor is it not the policy of admins to enforce the policies of the board?he's on again doing his same-old same-old.and frankly I am appalled that no action is taken. especially as I am not alone with this complaint.why is he "protected" when others aren't?the thread: {contracycle, clothes, humans, and bare lies} would be a better place to discuss this, but admin in its wisdom has closed it, which forces this to be an off topic issue here.that too is a breach of policydeal with the problem, not the symptoms.

I'm sorry but I have to ask you for the correct paperwork!Old Mrs Patterson from down the road had her telly nicked when she let in someone claiming to be Ganesh (I told her she should always check for false arms and trunks).Proof of omnipotency please!

quote:

---

as I have stated several times on THIS thread the issue of your failure
to substantiate YOUR position is not the topic here.

---

There is no such failure on my part.
In the thread of clothes, my only position was that "there is another theory for hairlessness", which I certainly substantiated.In your thread on the alleged logic of agnosticism, I cogently defended the view that not all logically consistent arguments are necessarily true merely on that basis.I have not failed to substantiate my position in any way.

Hey, I'm just the messanger!
Boss tells me to knock, I ask how many times!

editThis message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-25-2005 08:07 AM

another blatant misrepresentation.the claims that you are asked repeatedly to substantiate have nothing to do with your intolerant opinion of agnostics.specifically they are detailed on
EvC Forum: contracycle, clothes, humans, and bare lies. Obviously the falsehood you just posted in your last "message" has nothing to do with these still unsubstantiated claims two more falsehoods in a long line of falsehoods. I just detailed three that you have failed (in spite of repeated requests) to substantiate.Again you show why there needs to be a seperate thread to deal with your behavior, to keep it from infecting other threads.Do you still claim that
http://EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes? -->EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes? is the same as your claim
EvC Forum: Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. and do you still maintain your false position on this and the other ones listed above?or is your only interest in closing this thread?

Please see Message 229closing threadAny discussion of this action can be taken up in the appropriate thread in my signature box.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com