• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The New Definition of Atheism

Sherlock Holmes said:
So you must disagree with this "Seeing trees sway (X) is evidence that the wind is blowing (Y)"? is that an incorrect use of the word "evidence" in your opinion?

Be careful how you answer because whether I continue to respond to you depends on your answer, ball's in your court...
Click to expand...

Again with a threat. Please refrain in the future. Thanks in advance.


As I explained in another thread, I was using the term "X" in a mathematical sense since you often talk in terms of math. If that is not the case, then you example of trees swaying is evidence of the wind, BUT that in no way translates to theology whereby X, the universe, is evidence of Y, a "God". in the second case, the X causes Y has no evidence like the tree swaying does.
 
watsup said:
Again with a threat. Please refrain in the future. Thanks in advance.


As I explained in another thread, I was using the term "X" in a mathematical sense since you often talk in terms of math. If that is not the case, then you example of trees swaying is evidence of the wind, BUT that in no way translates to theology whereby X, the universe, is evidence of Y, a "God". in the second case, the X causes Y has no evidence like the tree swaying does.
Click to expand...

Very well so you agree that it is nonsensical to say that some thing is evidence of itself, good, I'm glad we've cleared that up.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Very well so you agree that it is nonsensical to say that some thing is evidence of itself, good, I'm glad we've cleared that up.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, responding to my more involved explanation with a simplistic misrepresentation.
Which pretty much shows that I am on the right track since you can't actually refute it.
Thanks.
 
watsup said:
You are, of course, responding to my more involved explanation with a simplistic misrepresentation.
Which pretty much shows that I am on the right track since you can't actually refute it.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

You should be thankful I reply to you at all, such is the vacuousness of many of your posts.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
You should be thankful I reply to you at all, such is the vacuousness of many of your posts.
Click to expand...

I am clearly not vacuous, nor does David "not have any idea what he is talking about". We are both making reasoned and thoughtful inputs. Please stay on topic rather than claiming negative traits about us. Thanks in advance.
 
watsup said:
I am clearly not vacuous, nor does David "not have any idea what he is talking about". We are both making reasoned and thoughtful inputs. Please stay on topic rather than claiming negative traits about us. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but anyone who tells me its the truth that there's no such thing as truth has exchanged reason for the dark side, if this is not obvious to you then you have much to learn.

Perhaps this character can help you in your struggle to understand:

416bjBY3QFL._AC_SX355_.jpg
 
Last edited:
watsup said:
I am clearly not vacuous, nor does David "not have any idea what he is talking about". We are both making reasoned and thoughtful inputs. Please stay on topic rather than claiming negative traits about us. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Why do you even bother?
 
watsup said:
Actually, there is “settled science” in a macro sense. For instance, evolution and manmade global warming are both settled science in that they are both accepted as phenomenon that are real. That is not to say that the details of both don’t need tweaking, but the overall science is accepted.
Click to expand...

Politics are not science.
 
watsup said:
I am clearly not vacuous, nor does David "not have any idea what he is talking about". We are both making reasoned and thoughtful inputs. Please stay on topic rather than claiming negative traits about us. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Sherlock posts vacuous New Age gibberish.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Yes, some people were in AA, and I used to drive an amputee to his meetings and wait for him. It was quite fascinating. I remember one convener stating that it doesn't matter what form the higher power takes, for it could be the number 12 bus into town for all the difference it made.
Click to expand...

I have understood the same thing.

In a 12 step program or in the world's religions, the "Higher Power" seems to take various forms and provide various instructions.

From your comment, it seems that the person you were driving was not helped by the program. Did he find help elsewhere?
 
zyzygy said:
Sherlock posts vacuous New Age gibberish.
Click to expand...

By all means dwell on my perceived failings and just like the GOP with Trump, remain silent when a participant here asserts "there's no such thing as truth" if you took the theme of this thread even the tiniest bit seriously you too would point out this ridiculous logic.

Of course honesty is not valued here, only disagreeing with theists for anything they might say but never a fellow atheist under any circumstances, such cowardice.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
By all means dwell on my perceived failings and just like the GOP with Trump, remain silent when a participant here asserts "there's no such thing as truth" if you took the theme of this thread even the tiniest bit seriously you too would point out this ridiculous logic.

Of course honesty is not valued here, only disagreeing with theists for anything they might say but never a fellow atheist under any circumstances, such cowardice.
Click to expand...

And pop theologists don’t do the same in regard to atheists? Really?
 
watsup said:
Strawman response. I don’t respond to strawmen.
Click to expand...

And I will no longer respond to you, it was actually a question if you care to actually read it, there are some intelligent atheists here at least, so I'll confine my responses to them from here on.
 
Last edited:
Sherlock Holmes said:
And I will no longer respond to you, it was actually a question if you care to actually read it, there are some intelligent atheists here at least, so I'll confine my responses to them from here on.
Click to expand...

“I take it” makes it a strawman because you are attempting to put words in my mouth. And even without that introduction, the implication remains clear that I do approve of such conduct, so it’s still a strawman.
Please try to avoid them in the future.
 
watsup said:
“I take it” makes it a strawman because you are attempting to put words in my mouth. And even without that introduction, the implication remains clear that I do approve of such conduct, so it’s still a strawman.
Please try to avoid them in the future.
Click to expand...

And of course the usual theist insult, their last resort when they paint themselves into a corner.
 
yankintx said:
Why do you care?

Live and let live
Click to expand...

We're in a forum!

I have to care to care if they're using the wishy-washy definition as an excuse in discussions!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom