Loaded Question

[AronRa]

I don’t know what relevance you’re trying to insinuate when you refer back to Ray Comfort.

Furthermore when I see some of the half-baked posts, it leaves me incredulous about the credibility of the majority of the site’s participants.

After-all the scientific method itself requires supreme faith that the universe and nature behaves according to consistent laws and that the results of experiments can therefore be relied upon.

I merely could not resist picking off the easy hanging fruit on your tree of flawed arguments, by abiding by your very own self-proclaimed “standards” for evidence and going onto proclaim that you’ve no just reason to assert that you’ve been faithful to your wife (& vice versa).

Sorry Aron, but please excuse me, because I could not help myself but use your very own warped and perverted “logic” to illustrate the absurdity of your assertions and highlight your futile attempts to refer to the red herring of Ray Comfort.

You were the one who referred to Ray Comfort, incorrectly. I corrected you. I don't know how to correct the rest of what you said, because there is no correlation to reality. You're pretending to have done things which you apparently haven't even tried to do. Maybe you thought about illustrating or picking off some absurdity or flaw in my argument, (if you could find one), but you haven't actually done that. If you had, then you'd be able to show where that had happened in this conversation. You can't because it didn't.

That and you still have some cognitive impairment regarding both the nature and philosophy of science and the meaning of the word 'faith' -even after I have explained it to you multiple times and in detail. Once again, I repeat, science works as the antithesis of faith, the direct opposite of faith. Faith is a firm conviction that is not based on evidence, but science is a tentative analysis which is entirely dependent on evidence. That's why gravity, atoms, germs, and cells are all referred to as 'theory' even though all of them are matters of demonstrable fact; because all scientific analysis is tentative, and devoid of faith. But then you think Ray and my conversation was over whether I had been faithful to my wife, I've already explained that no, our conversation was over whether I had faith that my wife exists. That you haven't corrected this error indicates that you may be imagining a lot more than has really happened, and you're unable to distinguish that from what actually has happened.

At any rate, I'm glad I brought this discussion to public format, just so others can be impressed that you think these things.

 

[JRChadwick]

This guy has the pretentious attitude of shauk100. He also seems to think trying to use big words makes him appear confident and intelligent,well at least he is taking the time to make his messages appear coherent, even if they are describing events that occurred in his mind. Seriously, tell him that reading his messages is like watching failure crap its pants.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

After-all the scientific method itself requires supreme faith that the universe and nature behaves according to consistent laws and that the results of experiments can therefore be relied upon.

I believe this is in response to me.

First off, the anonymous e-mailer is equivocating the term faith. In common parlay faith can be interchangeable with what is more commonly known as trust as well as the adequate definition of faith (i.e. belief in things not seen). I like to denote the difference by adding the word “blind” before faith whenever I do talk about things that would fall under faith’s adequate definition, so equivocation is not possible.

Second, there is no blind faith needed when talking about the observable universe and the laws used to describe it. One might go as far as to say trust, but I would say it is an inductive approach to understanding the universe that shows things are far more likely to stay constant than to “magically” change out of nowhere. Now, this can be falsified, all the anonymous e-mailer has to do is point out where and when we have observed the laws of the universe breaking down (a.k.a. a miracle/magic). Until that is demonstrated, there is no reason to assume it could happen.

 

[JRChadwick]

You could shorten the response to just; we don't have faith in the consistent laws of nature, they are demonstrably provable.

 

[AronRa]

Hi Aron. Just a courtesy to say that I suspect some someone’s been hacking into your blogsite because I think some of my emails that you have posted have since been deleted by someone. Or perhaps they’ve been removed by an over-zealous forum moderator.

Anyway if I leave this matter over to you, at least I’m happy to have been some assistance.

Nope. Everything I posted is still here.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

What in the literal fuck is so hard about learning the difference between assuming constant laws based on centuries of experiments showing they do not change and merely having faith they do not?

Like seriously, it's retarded

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Hi Aron. Just a courtesy to say that I suspect some someone’s been hacking into your blogsite because I think some of my emails that you have posted have since been deleted by someone. Or perhaps they’ve been removed by an over-zealous forum moderator.

Anyway if I leave this matter over to you, at least I’m happy to have been some assistance.

Nope. Everything I posted is still here.

Anonymous e-mailer could always create an account, post, and take screen shots of what (s)he posts if (s)he suspects foul play. I would think (s)he would jump at the chance of exposing the dishonesty of us evil atheists. I mean, at the moment, there are, not one, but two theists acting very dishonestly on this forum alone. Who knows, anonymous e-mailer might be able to show the same with the atheist moderators.

 

[Prolescum]

Wait, this chap thinks that because the content of his emails have been cross-posted here, we somehow have managed to determine who provides his service, figure out which of the, I'm going with millions, of addresses is his, hack the password, and delete his ridiculous rambles?

That's a lot of effort for no discernible gain.

Cui bono?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Perhaps it was his dear and fluffy lord, who knows everything and, by all accounts, is a bit of a cunt.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Wait, this chap thinks that because the content of his emails have been cross-posted here, we somehow have managed to determine who provides his service, figure out which of the, I'm going with millions, of addresses is his, hack the password, and delete his ridiculous rambles?

That's a lot of effort for no discernible gain.

Cui bono?

I believe anonymous e-mailer is claiming that you (as a moderator) have deleted/edited AronRa's posts that contain his/her emails on this forum. The grand conspiracy you thought of is probably not outside of his/her mind, but not implied in this case.

 

[Prolescum]

Ah, I see. Well that's bollocks too. Perhaps they're unfamiliar with the concept of pages...

 

[Dustnite]

Wait, this chap thinks that because the content of his emails have been cross-posted here, we somehow have managed to determine who provides his service, figure out which of the, I'm going with millions, of addresses is his, hack the password, and delete his ridiculous rambles?

That's a lot of effort for no discernible gain.

Cui bono?

I just nmap scanned your external IP and now I have your credit card number!

 

[Prolescum]

:lol:

 

[Alligoose]

New user here. I've been lurking since 2012, gobbling up every major debate thread, and a continually astounded by the thoughtfulness that goes into every post, as well as the patience of people pm this forum.

Kindly forgive the thoughtlessness in this post.

I'm not sure what I can offer to this forum. I'm scientifically literate, but no expert in any field. By trade I am an attorney, and I have a strong interest in apologetics. I've heard them all (debunked a million times over) .

If you need any help in American law or legal analysis I'm happy to help.

Keep fighting the good fight, dear League! And now...back to lurking...

 

[Inferno]

New user here. I've been lurking since 2012, gobbling up every major debate thread, and a continually astounded by the thoughtfulness that goes into every post, as well as the patience of people pm this forum.

Kindly forgive the thoughtlessness in this post.

I'm not sure what I can offer to this forum. I'm scientifically literate, but no expert in any field. By trade I am an attorney, and I have a strong interest in apologetics. I've heard them all (debunked a million times over) .

If you need any help in American law or legal analysis I'm happy to help.

Keep fighting the good fight, dear League! And now...back to lurking...

Greetings. Many of us are lay(wo)men, only a few have real expertise in relevant areas. What unites us is a general fascination with science, a willingness to learn and the ability to... wait for it... read papers.

Enjoy your stay, if you have questions... we won't answer them.

 

[Alligoose]

Greetings. Many of us are lay(wo)men, only a few have real expertise in relevant areas. What unites us is a general fascination with science, a willingness to learn and the ability to... wait for it... read papers.

Enjoy your stay, if you have questions... we won't answer them.

Ha, as long as you provide the citations, I'm on board.

Back on topic: Aron, I'm quite happy to see you still posting here after so much time, and after having thoroughly explained the same concepts ad infinitum. Posting of your correspondence will be a useful method to hold people accountable for their claims.

Although, frankly, the same can be said for all the regulars on this forum.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Welcome Alligoose. I have decided to redefine my gender in your (and Inferno's) honour.

 

[Alligoose]

Welcome Alligoose. I have decided to redefine my gender in your (and Inferno's) honour.

I freely admit I'm a male. Or was. Given my long work hours, I'm slowly becoming more cake than man.

Which, coincidentally, will be the next clade in the tumbleweed of life. Homo Redvelveticus.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Homo madeirensis, surely?

 

[Alligoose]

Homo madeirensis, surely?

Ah, a fair point. But the great baker made us all in his image, which, weirdly, is very cake-like .

Do you not see evidence of the divine baker? Just look at the scones!