God is a Fake

[falcon9]

Logic is one thing and commonsense another.  ~Elbert Hubbard, The Note Book, 1927

Commonsense is, apparently, a less common sense than inherently assumed.

                     
Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge.  ~Benjamin Jowett

That would be an unsupported opinion, (and the obvious "dodge" of someone unable to employ logic effectively).

Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.  ~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Flight to Arras, 1942, translated from French by Lewis Galantière

That quote translates as 'spiritual matters aren't conducive to logical challenge'.

A mind all logic is like a knife all blade.  ~Rabindranath Tagore

Glibness.  No mind is "all logic" and such a "blade" is tempered by other factors which partly form the 'handle' which which such a blade is wielded.

Metaphysics may be, after all, only the art of being sure of something that is not so, and logic only the art of going wrong with confidence.  ~Joseph Wood Krutch, The Modern Temper, 1929 (Thanks, Jeff)
[/b][/color]

The quote is a mis-statement; 'faith' is the art of being "wrong with confidence".

[Falconer02]

You omitted the part where such 'attacks' were _initiated_ by others before any perceived 'return-fire' responses.  It's more difficult to play the 'victim' when that 'victim' initiates an attack.

I'll add that you live in a country that's heavily christian. The christian population tends to believe that they're 'under attack' and 'victims' of elementary skepticism.

I'm also one to believe that once a person in an argument starts to attack the argumenter for trivial things and not the topic at hand,  they've unwillingly admitted to losing that argument. At this point I think the fact that they're attacking the term "logic", you've shown how abstract and vague the oppositions beliefs really are. It's grasping at straws.

[falcon9]

I'll add that you live in a country that's heavily christian. The christian population tends to believe that they're 'under attack' and 'victims' of elementary skepticism.

If the country is predominately xtian, (at least superficially so and not fundamentally so), then why would a 'majority' be concerned about the 'minority' being skeptical of superstitious beliefs?  Further, how is the false perception of believers that they are "under attack" not a passive-aggressive attempt to silence dissenting views?

I'm also one to believe that once a person in an argument starts to attack the argumenter for trivial things and not the topic at hand,  they've unwillingly admitted to losing that argument. At this point I think the fact that they're attacking the term "logic", you've shown how abstract and vague the opposition's beliefs really are. It's grasping at straws.

I tend to agree with your assessment due to the abundance of evidence supporting it.  Your description reminds me of the Black Knight, (representing xtian irrationality as a metaphor in this instance), from Python's "Holy Grail"; claiming 'victory' after having both arms and both legs cut off by Arthur.

[SherylsShado]

quote by falcon

I, too, know several people like "Sheryls" who, when unable to defend their empty assertions or, reply to substantiated refutations resort to such ad hominem, (that is, 'attacking' the person making the argument rather than the argument itself).

     FYI, I don't have to defend anything to you or to anyone else.  I have my answers and I'm happy with them and I hope you're as happy with yours. I could care less if your opinion thinks may assertions are "empty".  I am not 'attacking" the person making the argument rather than the argument itself----I wasn't arguing anything! 
     If it seems like I'm 'attacking' the person then here's why.  I am always willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, time will always tell what a person is made of.   It wasn't until you posted in tigerlilly's thread where she requested prayer from any Christians on FC ---that you really showed what kind of person you are.  A guy with any shred of decency at all would have apologized to tigerlilly and would have either been supportive or quietly 'exited' that thread.  They easily could have checked out her former posts and seen that tigerlilly has been on FC alot longer than you, that she has always been so kind and supportive toward others and has never been mean to anyone on this forum.   If she had posted in d&d, then whatever.  However, she didn't.  NOT every thread needs to be dissected-to-death.  She posted in "Off Topic" and she posted to "Christians on FC"--- clearly not to you. You messed up and if you can't admit it and sincerely apologize to her, you're a jerk. 
     I'm not saying that because I'm upset that you don't "believe" the way I do, you can believe anything you want.  You can behave anyway you want...it's your life.  For some strange reason I expected you to be better than that,  I was wrong.

[SherylsShado]

quote by falcon

'hit-and-run' ones who post opinions framed as baseless assertions, (and then 'run' by declining to support their assertions or reply contextually to challenges to them).

FC doesn't have any rules stating that people have to reply back to any post they make.  If that disapponts you because you like to argue "until the cows come home"  (or perhaps I should say "until they retire out to pasture due to old age") in your case--- sorry.  Not everyone feels a need to waste time "debating& discussing" everything to death.  FC has no problems with people posting a post in one thread and moving on to another, so get over it.

[SherylsShado]

quote by falcon

Your baseless assessment of "toxic personality" falls under direct insult and is merely an unsupported opinion.  The further estimation that I'm the "one most FC members have on "ignore" " is a speculation without basis.  It can be concluded, (based upon the extent of this evidence), that your tendency for making unsupported assertions limits the veracity of what you assert.

Ya think so?  I remember seeing other posts where people stated their opinions of you and if you have studied "toxic personalities" at all...well, the shoes fit.  Furthermore, there have been quite a few that have stated they have you on "ignore".  I have no problems looking at the evidence that exists and drawing the same conclusions others on FC have.  It's you that has to try and make the evidence project whatever conclusion it is you are trying to drive home.  (No need to repeat it, like jcribb says, 'it plays like a recording"...) 

jcribb---LOVED your last post so much!   The quotes were awesome too!

[visvern]

  a being that has always been and always will be give me a break. a great merciful god would not let the chidren of this world be molested,go hungry,suffer in handicaps and deseases. thats why i beleive there is no god as tought in the bible. if he exists i sure would like his answer to why he lets innocent babies and children go thru the incidents i mentioned above.

[falcon9]

FYI, I don't have to defend anything to you or to anyone else. 

No, you don't - which is why 'hit-and-run' posting was mentioned concerning those unable to support their empty assertions.

I have my answers and I'm happy with them and I hope you're as happy with yours. I could care less if your opinion thinks may assertions are "empty". 

Such assertions are 'empty' not because it's my "opinion" that they are; they're empty when they lack any substantiation at all.  Whether you care to make this distinction or not is of limited concern to me.  Please feel free to continue to make empty assertions as I do to challenge them.

I am not 'attacking" the person making the argument rather than the argument itself----I wasn't arguing anything!

There are several posted replies, (presumably written by you), which contradict your denial.  Examples can be provided as evidence however, I'm somehow dubious that these would be acknowledged by closed minds.

 
If it seems like I'm 'attacking' the person then here's why.  I am always willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, time will always tell what a person is made of.   It wasn't until you posted in tigerlilly's thread where she requested prayer from any Christians on FC ---that you really showed what kind of person you are.  A guy with any shred of decency at all would have apologized to tigerlilly and would have either been supportive or quietly 'exited' that thread. 

So essentially, you admit to 'attacking' the messenger, (rather than the message, which contradicts your immediately prior statement), because you judged my responses in another thread concerning religious superstitions bothered you.  There is no need for an apology for expressing dissent with the suggestions provided, (regardless of who can suggest them or not), while suggesting alternate courses of action.
 

She posted in "Off Topic" and she posted to "Christians on FC"--- clearly not to you.

Anyone can reply in these forums and threads; responses are not restricted to xtians nor, inherently excluding non-xtians.

You messed up and if you can't admit it and sincerely apologize to her, you're a jerk. 

This is merely your opinion and resorting to name-calling reveals your true nature.

I'm not saying that because I'm upset that you don't "believe" the way I do, you can believe anything you want.  You can behave anyway you want...it's your life.  For some strange reason I expected you to be better than that,  I was wrong.

I don't beleive you.  Oddly enough, for some equally strange reason, I had initially given you the benefit of the doubt concerning nonbias.  Clearly, I was severely mistaken.

[falcon9]

FC doesn't have any rules stating that people have to reply back to any post they make. 

No they don't, you are correct.  FC staff doesn't mind if members post unsubstantiated/empty opinions and then run off without supporting them, (unless those violate the TOS or posting guidelines in some way).

If that disapponts you because you like to argue "until the cows come home"  (or perhaps I should say "until they retire out to pasture due to old age") in your case--- sorry.  Not everyone feels a need to waste time "debating& discussing" everything to death. 

If you seem disappointed at being unable to debate or, discuss any empty assertions which get challenged, that's your choice.  The inherent preference involved for making empty claims and then not backing them up.

FC has no problems with people posting a post in one thread and moving on to another, so get over it.

Quite true, just as they don't mind a prevalence of some members  for making empty claims and then not backing them up.

[SherylsShado]

quote from falcon

So essentially, you admit to 'attacking' the messenger, (rather than the message, which contradicts your immediately prior statement), because you judged my responses in another thread concerning religious superstitions bothered you.  There is no need for an apology for expressing dissent with the suggestions provided, (regardless of who can suggest them or not), while suggesting alternate courses of action.

falcon...are you so "un-human" that you just don't "get" how to behave ethically?  You don't have any compassion when someone else is in need?  No manners at all?  What I am upset at you for is how you treated another decent FC member, NOT for anything else.  You think you're so smart...what you actually are is so stupid that you can't see how stupid you actually are.  (The evidence for that can be seen in 98% of your posts.) 

[falcon9]

quote by falcon

Your baseless assessment of "toxic personality" falls under direct insult and is merely an unsupported opinion.  The further estimation that I'm the "one most FC members have on "ignore" " is a speculation without basis.  It can be concluded, (based upon the extent of this evidence), that your tendency for making unsupported assertions limits the veracity of what you assert.

Ya think so? 

Yep, which goes far in accounting for the explanation given as to why that is so.

I remember seeing other posts where people stated their opinions of you and if you have studied "toxic personalities" at all...well, the shoes fit. 

The empty opinions of layman posters who aren't qualified assess such things is meaningless.  An appeal to 'popular opinion' is a logical fallacy.

Furthermore, there have been quite a few that have stated they have you on "ignore".  I have no problems looking at the evidence that exists and drawing the same conclusions others on FC have. 

"Quite a few" would be about three or four?  Regardless, this does not constitute evidence of the validity of the empty opinions of religious adherents; it constitutes evidence that such adherents are unwilling/unable to reason and instead, prefer 'attacking' those who challenge their blind faith.

It's you that has to try and make the evidence project whatever conclusion it is you are trying to drive home.   

On the contrary, you're the one trying to make the evidence fit your invalid conclusion, (e.g., that fundies putting my posts "ignore" somehow supports the completely subjective 'opinion' of a "toxic personality" when it doesn't follow from the premise nor, is supported by it).  Although I will concede that the evidence you've presented for clinging to irrationality in lieu of the more difficult capacity to reason is compelling but, not conclusive.

[falcon9]

falcon...are you so "un-human" that you just don't "get" how to behave ethically?

My personal ethics are not under discussion, (those which I possess being of no concern to you).  

You don't have any compassion when someone else is in need?  No manners at all?

What makes you think that my responses, (those suggesting more effective means of problem resolution), were not 'compassionate'?  Because I don't believe as superstitiously as you and some others do?  Where are the manners in disrespecting alternative suggestions?  Are you actually so rude that it never occurs to you that those alternate suggestions, (to seek more viable solutions than 'wishful-thinking'), were not impolite?

What I am upset at you for is how you treated another decent FC member, NOT for anything else.

 
I don't believe the excuse, (not reason, because there isn't any in the excuse).  Your previous posts contradict that assertion.

You think you're so smart...

Where was that either explicitly or, implicitly claimed?  No evidence would mean another empty assertion.

what you actually are is so stupid that you can't see how stupid you actually are.  (The evidence for that can be seen in 98% of your posts.)  

If so, you could post quotes, (or at least message IDs), which would support your shallow attempt to insult.  Can you provide such evidence or, is this yet another example of your making empty assertions?

[loulizlee]

Are you tired yet of saying the same things over and over again, Falcon?  I think we need to stop responding to your endless tirades to shut you up.  However, I look in every once in a while just to see if you have said anything different.  My guilty pleasure.

[falcon9]

Are you tired yet of saying the same things over and over again, Falcon?

Sometimes I do grow weary of the same unsupported claims made by religious adherents and don't always have the patience to come up with new ways of challenging them to support their claims. Since such claims are largely repetitious, a different response would be an unreasonable expectation.

I think we need to stop responding to your endless tirades to shut you up.

Several of the more fundamentalist religious adherents claimed to have already done so, (sans the occassional hit-and-run jabs they engage in; like this one from you?).  This is amusing especially amusing when they not only claim to have certain members on "ignore" but, actually _announce_ that they are "ignoring" another by posting that they're "ignoring" them.  By the way, your suggested attempt to censor dissent, ("to shut you up"), is very revealing of the weakness of your position.

However, I look in every once in a while just to see if you have said anything different.  My guilty pleasure.

I too await some new speculative claim from the religious adherents.  You never know, one of 'em might come up with some variation I haven't encountered before, (hasn't happened thusfar, disappointingly enough).

[Falconer02]

falcon...are you so "un-human" that you just don't "get" how to behave ethically?  You don't have any compassion when someone else is in need?  No manners at all?  What I am upset at you for is how you treated another decent FC member, NOT for anything else.  You think you're so smart...what you actually are is so stupid that you can't see how stupid you actually are.  (The evidence for that can be seen in 98% of your posts.)  

Correct me if I'm wrong (Sheryl), but I may see the alternate trail that Sheryl is talking of. Don't get me wrong- you (Falcon9) are completely right in your response to this, but the religious may generally have major emotional problems that they're coping with. The major fault in this attack is that the religious who are going through such problems shouldn't be debating their beliefs in the first place. It's not smart. It's also majorly hypocritical if the religious are getting angry at a willing debater in a debate forum.

Anyway, I can recall that I've personally been in 2 of these instances where I was unaware of what the person was going through (one suffered from major depression and the other had had an abortion when they were younger). Once I learned of their history, I felt awkward so I purposely ran the argument into a ditch since the emotional responses from the people were angrily clouding what I wanted to just be a casual debate.