Faith

[jcribb16]

You ignored the entire content of this post in order to repeat your previous nonsense, (merely responding to a post without replying to the content is the same dodge you're using in attempting to substitute filler verbiage for valid evidence).  

You have repeatedly told me that you do not accept the proof that I provide.

That's because you've failed to produce any valid evidence.  Since such invalid "evidence" consisted of your references to "discussing" the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system").  None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase.  Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.

In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?

Therefore, we must agree to disagree because we do not have the same opinion on this subject.

The salient difference being that yours is an empty, unsupported opinion of preference while mine is supported by the fact that a 'disbelief' isn't a "belief system" by definition, (most expressly Not the one you tried to fob off as faux "evidence").  I see no reason to "agree to disagree" since that is nominally used as a euphemism used to attempt to 'save face' while losing an argument.

Honestly, why are you really SO confrontational that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say if it is not 100% equialent to your beliefs. Be an adult, agree to disagree.

My dissent does not stem from any "beliefs", it arises from a disbelief in your numerous unsupported claims.  Since this forum is D+D, (Debate + Discuss), one would normally expect some debate to be "confrontational" therefore, your complaint is a non sequitur.  Once again, you attempt the "insult" alledgedly disparaging my 'maturity'.  That being the case, don't whine when you get what you dish out back; I find myself in the unchallenging position of having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Speaking of which, in view of the lack of valid evidence to support your claimed declaration, it must be concluded that your opinion is baseless and factually invalid.  This is apparently analoguous to your 'blind faith' declarations of religious opinion.  Empty as a holey bucket.

Just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it false.
I am not complaining.
This debate will continue to go nowhere as we view things form opposite sides of the spectrum, I see no reason for either of us to continue wasting our time when it is obvious we will continue to disagree. This is not saving face, it is accepting that two people do not always see things the same way.
Your opinion that my opinion is "baseless and factually invalid" shows that we will never agree as you believe that nothing I say holds any value, so there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
I did not ignore your questions, you merely do not accept my answers.
When I disagree with you- you tell me I am wrong. When I say you are entitled to your opinion- you accuse me of dodging a question. When I agree to disagree- you accuse me of trying to save face. You are confrontational to the point of arguing with everything I say, this is different than debating, and I see no reason to sit around and disagree constantly with someone. I am acknowledging that we disagree and I am fine with that, if you cannot agree to disagree that is you own inner issue to deal with.
[/quote]

I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.

[jordandog]

Portion pulled from SurveyMack's post:

..this is different than debating..

Now, don't fall out of your chair or faint and hit the floor, but I couldn't agree more!

This entire conglomeration of posts, spanning umpteen pages, ceased being any type of 'debate' long ago. The saying about "the dog who refuses to let go of the bone" comes to mind. At this point, either one of you will stop replying or you'll both continue to chase your tails - 'agree to disagree' just doesn't work with some.

[SurveyMack10]

My school grades are a part of my personal life

Perhaps so however, you initially brought them up and posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.

but thanks for your assessment of a stranger- very enlightening.

You're merely young and inexperienced. With any luck, persistence and ability, that might change.  Doubtless you'll reject the observational "assessment of a stranger", (given the unspoken 'you don't know me' implicit in your remark).  The remarks, statements, opinions and unsupported claims you've made on a public forum are known, however.  That's what those "assessments" are based upon - although you would be correct in assuming that I don't know you.

YOU brought up my schoolwork.
You don't know anything about my age or experience.
And you do not know me whatsoever, thanks for pointing that out.
What I do know is that you and I have different opinions on this issue.
I accept that your opinion is different than mine and you are absolutely entitled to it.
Whether or not you think I am entitled to my opinion, I am agreeing to disagree.
There is nothing more to be said here.

[SurveyMack10]

You ignored the entire content of this post in order to repeat your previous nonsense, (merely responding to a post without replying to the content is the same dodge you're using in attempting to substitute filler verbiage for valid evidence).  

You have repeatedly told me that you do not accept the proof that I provide.

That's because you've failed to produce any valid evidence.  Since such invalid "evidence" consisted of your references to "discussing" the topic of atheism in general terms, using a dictionary definition which _Did Not_ support your assertion and merely repeating your empty declaration that "atheism is a belief system").  None of the foregoing can even be loosely considered to be evidence so, it didn't even make it to the disagreement phase.  Producing non-evidence in lieu of evidence still constitutes ignoring the salient question.

In case you once again forgotten what the question you've been assidiously dodging was/is; can you back up your bald claim that "atheism is a belief system" with anything other than your empty declaration of opinion?

Therefore, we must agree to disagree because we do not have the same opinion on this subject.

The salient difference being that yours is an empty, unsupported opinion of preference while mine is supported by the fact that a 'disbelief' isn't a "belief system" by definition, (most expressly Not the one you tried to fob off as faux "evidence").  I see no reason to "agree to disagree" since that is nominally used as a euphemism used to attempt to 'save face' while losing an argument.

Honestly, why are you really SO confrontational that you refuse to acknowledge anything I say if it is not 100% equialent to your beliefs. Be an adult, agree to disagree.

My dissent does not stem from any "beliefs", it arises from a disbelief in your numerous unsupported claims.  Since this forum is D+D, (Debate + Discuss), one would normally expect some debate to be "confrontational" therefore, your complaint is a non sequitur.  Once again, you attempt the "insult" alledgedly disparaging my 'maturity'.  That being the case, don't whine when you get what you dish out back; I find myself in the unchallenging position of having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Speaking of which, in view of the lack of valid evidence to support your claimed declaration, it must be concluded that your opinion is baseless and factually invalid.  This is apparently analoguous to your 'blind faith' declarations of religious opinion.  Empty as a holey bucket.

Just because you do not agree with an opinion does not make it false.
I am not complaining.
This debate will continue to go nowhere as we view things form opposite sides of the spectrum, I see no reason for either of us to continue wasting our time when it is obvious we will continue to disagree. This is not saving face, it is accepting that two people do not always see things the same way.
Your opinion that my opinion is "baseless and factually invalid" shows that we will never agree as you believe that nothing I say holds any value, so there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
I did not ignore your questions, you merely do not accept my answers.
When I disagree with you- you tell me I am wrong. When I say you are entitled to your opinion- you accuse me of dodging a question. When I agree to disagree- you accuse me of trying to save face. You are confrontational to the point of arguing with everything I say, this is different than debating, and I see no reason to sit around and disagree constantly with someone. I am acknowledging that we disagree and I am fine with that, if you cannot agree to disagree that is you own inner issue to deal with.

I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.
[/quote]

Thank you, I was beginning to think what I was seeing in my post was not what everyone else was seeing by how the conversation is continuing to go in circles.

[falcon9]

My school grades are a part of my personal life

Perhaps so however, you initially brought them up and posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.

but thanks for your assessment of a stranger- very enlightening.

You're merely young and inexperienced. With any luck, persistence and ability, that might change.  Doubtless you'll reject the observational "assessment of a stranger", (given the unspoken 'you don't know me' implicit in your remark).  The remarks, statements, opinions and unsupported claims you've made on a public forum are known, however.  That's what those "assessments" are based upon - although you would be correct in assuming that I don't know you.

YOU brought up my schoolwork.

"My school grades are a part of my personal life"


You initially posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.

You don't know anything about my age or experience.

Unless you posted a picture of your young daughter, presumably you're not a 48 year old mom returning to college.  However, the pattern and content of your posted replies strongly suggests youthful inexperience, (given that the younger one is, the less time has elapsed to attain experience).  Regardless, what is known about you arises from what you've publically posted.  Doubtless this does not encompass the entirety of your 'vast' experience.

And you do not know me whatsoever, thanks for pointing that out.

I didn't write "whatsoever" in that context; I did state that 'what is known about you arises from what you've publically posted'.

What I do know is that you and I have different opinions on this issue.

There's a distinctive difference between your unsupported opinion and unmet challenges to it, (those challenges did not consist of "opinion" but, were and are based upon the standard consensual meanings of the unsupported opinion you expressed; that "atheism is a belief system").

I accept that your opinion is different than mine and you are absolutely entitled to it.

You keep conflating your "opinion" with a challenge to you to support it; they are not equivalent.

Whether or not you think I am entitled to my opinion, I am agreeing to disagree.

On the contrary, I have remarked that you are "entitled" to hold a baseless opinion, (which bears no resemblance to accuracy).  So too am I "entitled" to question such unsupported declarations in a forum entitled Debate + Discuss.

There is nothing more to be said here.[/b]

Nothing more except the summary of this "discussion" in which you asserted your baseless opinion that "atheism is a belief system", failed to meet the challenge of substantiating that initial claim, failed to actually 'debate' such challenges and support your argument.  This lengthy "discussion" does not trail off with an agreement to disagree since you tacitly conceded the defeat of your argument, (unless of course, you're still on that 'getting the last word in' mission).

[falcon9]

I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.

Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.

[falcon9]

Portion pulled from SurveyMack's post:

..this is different than debating..

Now, don't fall out of your chair or faint and hit the floor, but I couldn't agree more!

I also concurred but, probably for somewhat different reasons.

This entire conglomeration of posts, spanning umpteen pages, ceased being any type of 'debate' long ago.

That's not entirely accurate; I've continued to bring the context of the "debate" back to challenging that assertion that "atheism is a belief system" however, the one who made that unsubstantiated claim refused to support her empty declaration.  At the point of challenges to that unsupported assertion, the "debate" became a tangential discussion apparently used in lieu of debate.

 

[SurveyMack10]

My school grades are a part of my personal life

Perhaps so however, you initially brought them up and posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.

but thanks for your assessment of a stranger- very enlightening.

You're merely young and inexperienced. With any luck, persistence and ability, that might change.  Doubtless you'll reject the observational "assessment of a stranger", (given the unspoken 'you don't know me' implicit in your remark).  The remarks, statements, opinions and unsupported claims you've made on a public forum are known, however.  That's what those "assessments" are based upon - although you would be correct in assuming that I don't know you.

YOU brought up my schoolwork.

"My school grades are a part of my personal life"


You initially posted your alleged GPA here, as if tacitly making your GPA a matter of public information.
That earlier action inherently contradicts your later complaint.

You don't know anything about my age or experience.

Unless you posted a picture of your young daughter, presumably you're not a 48 year old mom returning to college.  However, the pattern and content of your posted replies strongly suggests youthful inexperience, (given that the younger one is, the less time has elapsed to attain experience).  Regardless, what is known about you arises from what you've publically posted.  Doubtless this does not encompass the entirety of your 'vast' experience.

And you do not know me whatsoever, thanks for pointing that out.

I didn't write "whatsoever" in that context; I did state that 'what is known about you arises from what you've publically posted'.

What I do know is that you and I have different opinions on this issue.

There's a distinctive difference between your unsupported opinion and unmet challenges to it, (those challenges did not consist of "opinion" but, were and are based upon the standard consensual meanings of the unsupported opinion you expressed; that "atheism is a belief system").

I accept that your opinion is different than mine and you are absolutely entitled to it.

You keep conflating your "opinion" with a challenge to you to support it; they are not equivalent.

Whether or not you think I am entitled to my opinion, I am agreeing to disagree.

On the contrary, I have remarked that you are "entitled" to hold a baseless opinion, (which bears no resemblance to accuracy).  So too am I "entitled" to question such unsupported declarations in a forum entitled Debate + Discuss.

There is nothing more to be said here.[/b]

Nothing more except the summary of this "discussion" in which you asserted your baseless opinion that "atheism is a belief system", failed to meet the challenge of substantiating that initial claim, failed to actually 'debate' such challenges and support your argument.  This lengthy "discussion" does not trail off with an agreement to disagree since you tacitly conceded the defeat of your argument, (unless of course, you're still on that 'getting the last word in' mission).

On a separate thread you tried to attack my intelligence by saying something about me not making very good grades, I let you know that was not the case.
You continue to bring it up though it is still irrelevant and frankly not even your business to discuss and never was in the first place.
However, if I would not have let you know what my grades were after you initially attacked them, you probably would have said that I do in fact make bad grades because I ddin't refute it- and would likely STILL bring it up as a personal attack.
So, now you know why I let you know what my GPA was and now you know why there is no need to discuss it anymore at all.
Your talking down to me by assuming my age and making assumptions about my life experiences is amusing and absolutely irrelevant.
This thread has turned into petty nonsense and wasted time.
In regard to the rest of your post, I agree to disagree. If you cannot do the same that is your own inner issue.

[falcon9]

There is nothing more to be said here.[/b]

Nothing more except the summary of this "discussion" in which you asserted your baseless opinion that "atheism is a belief system", failed to meet the challenge of substantiating that initial claim, failed to actually 'debate' such challenges and support your argument.  This lengthy "discussion" does not trail off with an agreement to disagree since you tacitly conceded the defeat of your argument, (unless of course, you're still on that 'getting the last word in' mission). [/quote]

On a separate thread you tried to attack my intelligence by saying something about me not making very good grades

No, I questioned your claim to a "4.0 GPA" based upon your posted claim a "4.0 GPA" based upon your comments which did not appear to stem from someone with a supposedly "4.0 GPA".

You continue to bring it up though it is still irrelevant and frankly not even your business to discuss and never was in the first place.

To reiterate; you initally mentioned your supposed "4.0 GPA"; how would I know you were in college or, what your alleged GPA was if you hadn't first mentioned it?  If it is none of my business, your purpose in mentioning it must have been other than you claim.

Your talking down to me by assuming my age and making assumptions about my life experiences is amusing and absolutely irrelevant.

Your perception of the extrapolation of your youthfulness and subsequent lack of experience as "talking down" to you is entirely subjective.  Either you're somewhat more elderly and experienced than was extrapolated or, as young and inexperienced as inferred from your public posts.  There's nothing of "talking down" in either inference.

This thread has turned into petty nonsense and wasted time.

Look in your mirror to affix the larger proportion of responsibility for that outcome.  I'll take responsibility for using the opportunity to illuminate an unsubstantiated claim made, (that "atheism is a belief system"), for the benefit of those with critical thinking skills.

In regard to the rest of your post, I agree to disagree.

I do not, (and have previously delineated why), therefore, there is no agreement to disagree.

[SurveyMack10]

There is nothing more to be said here.[/b]

Nothing more except the summary of this "discussion" in which you asserted your baseless opinion that "atheism is a belief system", failed to meet the challenge of substantiating that initial claim, failed to actually 'debate' such challenges and support your argument.  This lengthy "discussion" does not trail off with an agreement to disagree since you tacitly conceded the defeat of your argument, (unless of course, you're still on that 'getting the last word in' mission).

On a separate thread you tried to attack my intelligence by saying something about me not making very good grades

No, I questioned your claim to a "4.0 GPA" based upon your posted claim a "4.0 GPA" based upon your comments which did not appear to stem from someone with a supposedly "4.0 GPA".

You continue to bring it up though it is still irrelevant and frankly not even your business to discuss and never was in the first place.

To reiterate; you initally mentioned your supposed "4.0 GPA"; how would I know you were in college or, what your alleged GPA was if you hadn't first mentioned it?  If it is none of my business, your purpose in mentioning it must have been other than you claim.

Your talking down to me by assuming my age and making assumptions about my life experiences is amusing and absolutely irrelevant.

Your perception of the extrapolation of your youthfulness and subsequent lack of experience as "talking down" to you is entirely subjective.  Either you're somewhat more elderly and experienced than was extrapolated or, as young and inexperienced as inferred from your public posts.  There's nothing of "talking down" in either inference.

This thread has turned into petty nonsense and wasted time.

Look in your mirror to affix the larger proportion of responsibility for that outcome.  I'll take responsibility for using the opportunity to illuminate an unsubstantiated claim made, (that "atheism is a belief system"), for the benefit of those with critical thinking skills.

In regard to the rest of your post, I agree to disagree.

I do not, (and have previously delineated why), therefore, there is no agreement to disagree.
[/quote]

Once again, your opinion and assessment of my personal life is not wanted nor considered as it is not useful to me.
Regarding the small mention you made of the actual debate, we have different opinions, and that is fine with me.
You are entitled to yours as I am mine.

[falcon9]

Regarding the small mention you made of the actual debate, we have different ...

Manifestly, we have different criteria for what constitutes an unsupported opinion, (such as your claim that "atheism is a belief system"), and what constitutes your failure to actually debate the empty declarations you've made:

« Reply #404 on: October 21, 2011, 06:10:50 pm » Message ID: 435449
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 25, 2011, 04:11:01 pm

"The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God."

 
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist).  If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'

Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"?  Belief is god?  Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?

No cognizant substantiation or refutations were ever presented by you after you expressed your unsupported opinion as an assertion.  This was not extension of you not-debating, it was but an example of it.

[SurveyMack10]

Regarding the small mention you made of the actual debate, we have different ...

Manifestly, we have different criteria for what constitutes an unsupported opinion, (such as your claim that "atheism is a belief system"), and what constitutes your failure to actually debate the empty declarations you've made:

« Reply #404 on: October 21, 2011, 06:10:50 pm » Message ID: 435449
Quote from: SurveyMack10 on September 25, 2011, 04:11:01 pm

"The belief we were discussing is God, therefore the belief itself IS God."

 
'Oddly enough, questioning the unsupported assertions of those who claim the existence of some deity as factual makes one a skeptic, (not someone who makes the asserted claim that any particular deity does _not_ exist).  If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea.'

Are you seriously claiming that "the belief itself", (a belief in god), "IS God"?  Belief is god?  Care to support this directly quoted claim or, will it be your usual non-rebuttal/non-refutation/non-sense?

No cognizant substantiation or refutations were ever presented by you after you expressed your unsupported opinion as an assertion.  This was not extension of you not-debating, it was but an example of it.

Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.

[falcon9]

Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.

As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal.  Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God".  These are your unaltered words.  Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress).  Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.


Now, you've already done that dance around to avoid the inherent alternatives that, either your "belief" is in something real/extant or, it is in something unreal/imagined.  Whether you explicitly state this or not, those are the subsequently inherent alternatives implicit in your contention.

[SurveyMack10]

Once again, just because I choose to put faith in the existence of God does not mean I'm claiming it as fact.

As previously stated several times, (and just as often ignored by you); either your belief is in something which is real or, unreal.  Recently however, you directly claimed that your "belief itself IS God".  These are your unaltered words.  Prior to that interesting and unsupported claim, you'd claimed that your belief had nothing to do with whether or not "god was real" and that you were trying to shift emphasis onto your "belief" being real, (by way of stating that this is your belief and therefore, that your belief was real ... a good example of circular reasoning but, I disgress).  Taken together, these claims of yours are that, since your "belief is real and the belief itself IS God" = a claim that god is real.


Now, you've already done that dance around to avoid the inherent alternatives that, either your "belief" is in something real/extant or, it is in something unreal/imagined.  Whether you explicitly state this or not, those are the subsequently inherent alternatives implicit in your contention.

I removed the initial response I made to this post because I realized how stupid it is to sit here and justify my peresonal beliefs to a total stranger.

I never said God's existence was fact. It is my choice to put my faith in his being real. That's my right and my business. I don't owe you any proof of his existence, because I never claimed his existence was a fact.

Whatever you belief or don't believe is your business. And I have no interest in trying to convince you that you are wrong as you are trying to convince me.

I am acknowledging that we do not have the same beliefs, yet you continue to bring up issues that you know from past conversations that we will not agree on. I am not understanding your inability to accept that not everyone believes the way you do.

[jcribb16]

I would say that you have been very clear and straightforward with your response here.

Your opinion isn't surprising in this context, especially given your suspension of debating another subject in another thread.

I'll just say that 2 others, Falconer and Jordandog, have already hinted at how you two have gone round and round until it's ceased to be a debate.  I said what I did to SurveyMack, backing her up that she was agreeing to disagree with you, gave her reasons, and looked to be trying to let it go. I was also agreeing with Falconer and Jordandog that, in my words, "enough is enough."  You, however, came right back at her and continued this merry-go-round.  I don't care to get into with you about your response in regards to my opinion, because I don't care to get on the merry-go-round with you about just exactly what you were trying to imply.