contracycle writes:
RAZD quote:
your penchant for blatantly misrepresenting the facts is, again, hereby noted. these are both falsehoods. I challenge you to show a post where I said either. this is just one more example of your complete inabilty to deal with the subject honestly.
LOL. Your challenge is accepted, becuase I already succesfully posted them once. But it will have to wait for another post.
I want to see an exact quote of what you claimed, and not your usual misrepresentation.
contracycle, msg 82 writes:
You claimed there was no evidential support for the running ape model, and that sexual selection was therefore chosen by default.
No, you were hurling the insults, accusing me rather fatuously of not being an expert in the field. Your argument was destroyed. Deal with it.
specifically (1) where I said sexual selection "
was therefore chosen by default" -- this has been one of your bigger and most consistent misrepresentations of my position. you know, the position you could not define?
and (2) that I accused you "
fatuously of not being an expert in the field" -- these are your words, and not mine, and attributing them to me is misrepresentation.
you were the one hurling insult after insult after insult, even after I made an attempt to reach a compromise position with you.
Do you know why I like this quote of you:
contracycle, msg 70 writes:
It is undoubtedly the case that fundamentalists consider their position as right and true and just, and that they are superior ro non-fundamentalists in their commitment and zeal.
Because it describes you exactly.
I note you have failed to answer with any indication of where these tenets exist, or where your mythical organisation of dogmatic atheists is to ,located.
again you misrepresent. as pointed out several times so far, your main tenant is the belief that there is no god.
another tenant is that this belief is based on fact and is not a belief.
I also note that you do not need to be a member of a "mystical"
organisation to be a member of a group with tenets - this is another mistrepresentation of the argument, a strawman.
and you do claim to be a member of a group (or is this off again now?) Did you not say:
contracycle, msg 82 writes:
You have to deal with atheists as we are, not how we are in your imaginings
or is there a word there that I am missing your definition of to make sense of this.
That is your group and those are your tenents.
And in regards deism, they do have tenets - having been in Friends House, a deist facility, I have seen them on the walls. Duh.
Of course deists have tenets, it is, after all, another belief, eh? but that was not my question, oh master of misrepresentation. my statement was: "
of course, that the same questions can be posed for deism is probably beyond you. or do you contend that deism is not a belief" and it was in response to:
contracycle, msg 88 writes:
of which movement, faction, fraction, sect or tradition? Please be specific.
those questions you have not answered.
Note too that it is easy to compile a list of organizations for any form of belief from the web - here is a sample of atheist organizations from google:
Positive AtheismAtheists UnitedAtheist Alliance InternationalAmerican Atheists
but also see
Atheists United (links to other organizations) and
Yahoo listing of Atheist Organisations (alphabetical) if that isn't enough of a list for you.
Of course the existence of the organizations
per se is not really the issue ... the issue is "
the belief that the tenets of atheism are literally true, and that the belief is based on logic and rational thinking after reviewing the applicable evidence" that characterizes the
fundamental atheist as opposed to the atheist that just believes there is no god.
ahahaha... having appealed to dictionary authority, RAZD now appeals to the vulgar argot. Hypocritical much?
No matter how much you dance and protest on this issue, the point still comes down to communication. Either the words mean the same to both parties or there is no communication.
If I bought a publishing company, and we printed a dictionary containing the definition "RAZD: noun, a fool" would that then become True?
another strawman argument. of course you could publish any fool thing you want to foolishly part with money to publish. the difference is whether you want to be taken seriously or are doing it for foolish reasons. and whether you want to appear any more foolish on this issue.
I have maintained all along that the reasons for common definitions are to promote communication of ideas. Your approach does not do that, you want to use a uncommon, unlisted, unsupported definition to justify your ideology. fundies do this.
Yes, that exactly what you have done - remember, you prposed that keys I saw 10 minutes ago are equivalent in their mystery to a god who has never been observed ever in human history.
sigh ... don't you ever get tired of misrepresenting what people say? this is another example of gratuitous misrepresentation to make a strawman argument.
my argument with the keys was to specifically show that the argument that {an absence of evidence} is {evidence of absence} is false, because it is a logical fallacy. or perhaps you could (seeing as you are
so familiar with my posts) post that exact quote for me eh?
that "
keys I saw 10 minutes ago are equivalent in their mystery to a god who has never been observed"
again, I want a post of mine cited with those exact words.
enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
™ Version 4.2