What Is Your Evidence?

[egypt31]

Some of these people are mean huh, if there is infact a God which I believe I'm sure he's not happy with them.

"God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say God did it."
-- Carl Sagan

"You can safely say that you have made g-d in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people
you do."
-- Reverend Robert Cromey

It is funny without knowing anything about me that you throw these quotes at me that mean nothing to me and I don't hate you or any one that doesn't believe in God. In the bible it says some people couldn't handle knowing the truth so it would be held back from them for their own good. I hate nobody!!! If you got the impression I hated you I would like to know how and I am also sorry for you being misled!
--Joshua Shroyer        ---me

[falcon9]

Show me the ad hominem I have committed. 

" ... if you still have difficulty grasping the subject then perhaps you can find some seven year old to read it and explain it to you.  You may eventually discover that it is your "blind faith" that actually prevents you from understanding the material, but that would require more rationality than I think you are currently capable of." - msg ID# 585986
     and

While I have actually done some of this I can pretty much guarantee you that you cannot identify it because you still don't know what ad hominem is ... {msg ID# 585030

Here's another from me: you're a lying xtian idiot.

[falcon9]

It is funny without knowing anything about me that you throw these quotes at me that mean nothing to me and I don't hate you or any one that doesn't believe in God.

The only thing there is to go by/being referred to are your faith-blinded religious posts you've been proselytizing with here so far.  Like your next remark:

In the bible it says ...

[Abrupt]

Show me the ad hominem I have committed. 

" ... if you still have difficulty grasping the subject then perhaps you can find some seven year old to read it and explain it to you.  You may eventually discover that it is your "blind faith" that actually prevents you from understanding the material, but that would require more rationality than I think you are currently capable of." - msg ID# 585986
     and

While I have actually done some of this I can pretty much guarantee you that you cannot identify it because you still don't know what ad hominem is ... {msg ID# 585030

Here's another from me: you're a lying xtian idiot.

The first two are not ad hominem.  The last one, on its on is not ad hominem, and if it were true that I was a liar and idiot then it would not be ad hominem even if used to discredit (and if I were not a liar and idiot it still isn't ad hominem in the presentation you have presented).  So as I suspected, you don't know what ad hominem is and you use that word quite often (as well as your use of ad hominem).

[falcon9]

The first two are not ad hominem.  

A bland denial is no a refutation, though your attempting that even when evidence was presented, (consisting of your own words), means that you're either a compulsive or, pathological liar, (possibly in combination with a pervasive cognitive dissonance regarding your dishonesty).

[egypt31]

I said before the citing I had faith, Seeing what i saw was Evidence enough to me even knowing all you criticizers were here, that I still replied truth no matter what your reply back to me wold be, to me that is evidence all to itself.

Once again, simply claiming that such was 'witnessed' does not constitute valid evidence; it is merely your unsupported faith-based contention.

Where is your proof there is no God, your evidence is not there, where is your evidence, show me, not a bunch of words smashed together trying to make yourself sound smart, where is your evidence.

Although some things can be shown not to exist, requesting evidence to support a negative contention, ('prove Santa, easter bunny, fairies, elves, invisible pink unicorns' don't exist is an insistence upon a logical fallacy ... prove that you're not an idiot, etc.), indicates a diminished understanding of logical reasoning and does not confer validity on a specious claim.  Because there are nearly an infinite number of things which cannot be proven not to exist, it is more rational to require that those claiming the existence of something, (such as 'g-d'), support their claim with evidence.



 

So your argument is , that you have pages and pages of arguments on some thing you already know there is no evidence  for per say, There is no proof there is and there is no proof there isn't, If this is what you are saying why do you keep quoting out of books but when the bible is brought up it isn't good enough proof. Your logic seems  illogical to me, If you personally saw an Angel would that be evidence to you??    But you're saying that would be hearsay to me, where is the logic, that is my evidence!!!! Do I expect you to believe me, no, Would it be evidence to you if I passed a lie detector test in front of you, probably not, My evidence is, all this is as it is and no one can explain it.

[falcon9]

... you don't know what ad hominem is ... 

Untrue, (which privides additional evidence that you're a liar).

"Definition of AD HOMINEM:
-marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

You keep making specious remarks, (unsupported by evidence), which consist merely of your empty opinion and attempts to redefine terms, as if repeating unfounded falsehoods will somehow magically make them true.  No wonder you're a xtian; it suits your disingenuous paradigm.

[falcon9]

So your argument is , that you have pages and pages of arguments on some thing you already know there is no evidence  for per say, There is no proof there is and there is no proof there isn't...

No, there are pages of refutations because fundies like you are unable to grasp the difference between making a religious claim and failing to provide evidence to support it, (you and other religious adherents), and 'proving something doesn't exist, (a logical fallacy regarding negative assertions).

[Abrupt]

The first two are not ad hominem.  

A bland denial is no a refutation, though your attempting that even when evidence was presented, (consisting of your own words), means that you're either a compulsive or, pathological liar, (possibly in combination with a pervasive cognitive dissonance regarding your dishonesty).

You are the one that doesn't know what ad hominem is, not me.  I am telling you that those were not ad hominem and I am well aware of what is and isn't such.

[Abrupt]

... you don't know what ad hominem is ... 

Untrue, (which privides additional evidence that you're a liar).

"Definition of AD HOMINEM:
-marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

You keep making specious remarks, (unsupported by evidence), which consist merely of your empty opinion and attempts to redefine terms, as if repeating unfounded falsehoods will somehow magically make them true.  No wonder you're a xtian; it suits your disingenuous paradigm.

That is not an accurate definition of ad hominem.  While it is true in part, it is incomplete.  The attack must be of the form to discredit a persons argument based upon a quality of the person making the argument and not the argument itself.  To simply insult the person or their character is not ad hominem, but if you said because of a quality they demonstrate or possess that therefore their argument must be wrong is (but there are cases where you can attack the persons character in order to refute their argument which would not qualify as ad hominem).

Surely when you looked at that definition you had to wonder why "rather than by an answer to the contentions made" was even included?  You couldn't puzzle it out, though, could you?

[falcon9]

You are ...

Your unfounded opinions hold no more interest than as further evidence of your mental deficiencies, rampant self-delusions and self-aggrandizing fantasies of adequacy. You remain unable to reconcile the lack of evidence for your blind religious faith with your specious pseudo-rationalizations.

[falcon9]

That is not an accurate definition of ad hominem.  While it is true in part, it is incomplete.  

It's from meriam-webster.com; you don't get to redefine the meanings of words, (although you repeatedly attempt to do so in a further evidentiary example of the depths of your self-delusions).

[Abrupt]

That is not an accurate definition of ad hominem.  While it is true in part, it is incomplete.  

It's from meriam-webster.com; you don't get to redefine the meanings of words, (although you repeatedly attempt to do so in a further evidentiary example of the depths of your self-delusions).

I don't care where it is from.  The definition as stated is vague and if causes one to understand it as you did then it is incorrect.  Surely there are some that can follow through the meaning and realize the context it would be used in but this requires some familiarity with the subject.  I haven't redefined anything, I clarified and stipulated and indicated the connection that was unenforced within the definition.  If you think the definition I gave is a different end than the one you gave then I will sternly tell you that my definition is correct and yours is not.  If you can comprehend the underlying relevance of usage you might conclude the two were the same, with the meriam-webster.com one being vague.  Your blind faith in meriam-webster.com is your downfall in realizing this as it is not uncommon to find errors in dictionaries, encyclopedias, scientific journals and you should well realize this.

[falcon9]

I don't care where it is from.  

That's fine; I don't care how much you'd prefer to redefine terms which don't coincide with your faith-blinded narcissism, that sort of self-delusion on your part is best kept to yourself if you don't want it summarily-refuted every time.

[Abrupt]

I don't care where it is from.  

That's fine; I don't care how much you'd prefer to redefine terms which don't coincide with your faith-blinded narcissism, that sort of self-delusion on your part is best kept to yourself if you don't want it summarily-refuted every time.

I am not redefining anything.  I would have thought in your debate participation you would have learned what ad hominem is.  I know in my persuasive writing courses we covered such topics.  I haven't even altered the meaning of the definition you gave, I only clarified it.  From your point of view you could strip the end part I indicated earlier off the definition and you would have the same result as you seem to think.  You are either lacking in comprehension more than I had previously thought, or your ego prevents you from admitting I am right in this matter, or you are trying to troll in your typical fashion.  Honestly I don't care and it is somewhat entertaining to see you accuse people of using ad hominem when they are not and you are -- so by all means continue with whatever understanding of it you wish and be more the fool for it.