Do you think less of theists intelligence?

Well in mine alot of people dont go to church but just believe in God. But even those who do believe in the Abrahamic God, don't always have fixed beliefs or take the whole bible as literal truth.

I dont even see why some one can't believe in Jesus without believing that the bible is imperfect.

I guess it is easier to dispute fundies?

 

have you read anything i wrote at all?
from the 1st post on i said i didn't know. it was Okiefreak who introduced chance into the conversation with that example and said improbable coincidences would be the doing of intelligence. i took him up on the chance debate expressing my understanding that chance is chance alone, the protein now long abandoned (the protein was an example not the point of the conversation). if you can't differentiate between those two and can't keep track on when a debate is changing angle how can you ever have an adequate conversation with anybody? or maybe you just read some one sentence and not my entire post(s), in which case -- no comments.

 

Of course I did. How would I be having this discussion with you if I hadn't read any of what you wrote

What you wrote from 1st post to Okiefreak is irrelevant when I point to an obvious error in one of your statements. Okiefreak has nothing to do with it.

Now the question is: did you read what I wrote?

Chance is chance and I am not one to debate it.
But you also implied that no matter how improbable for event to have happened by chance, no matter how long the odds of it being a result of random chance it still is result of a chance. In other words, Probability Theory flies out the window, everything is a chance as long as you can't come up with any other explanation.

See here:

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=374625&page=11

You actually made two statements there, not one.

1) to me, if something is highly improbable and still takes place it doesn't draw any associations with an intelligent design

To which I replied with well, that part I will not debate.

But then you went on with:

2) to me, that is just a coincidence

and it is your second statement that I find to be unreasonable

Now who is not differentiating between two

Isn't it right

 

jumbuli55 -- you are twisting the arguments and manipulating the conversation just like Okiefreak. maybe you two are the same person. whatever the case, my part in this juvenile conversation ends here.

 

Watch this Jumbuli, I can do what you do too.

Jumbuli, you have no understanding of the concept material at hand However, I possess a greater understanding of it than you do I find it funny how you make this ridiculous statements and believe us to take them for true concepts!

See, we all can say it without actually backing it up. Seeing as we are running into some problems with definitions, let's back up and make clear what we're talking about in these arguments. Communication is a two-way process and both of us are failing at it on some level.

My definition of chance and the concepts involved

Chance-A possibility or probability of anything happening

Things that effect chance

Factors we can measure

• Things in nature, such as wind
• Human error, aid, etc
• Things we have an understanding of, and things we will come to have an understanding of

Things that do not exist (and never will)

• God

Now, when I talk about chance, I'm talking about JUST chance (A.K.A "An event solely governed by chance..."). If I was talking about an chance and factors that we can measure, I would have noted it.

Where we fail at communication is making these definitions and our understanding of these basic concepts clear.

When I refered to divine intervention, I wasn't thinking that you were refering to it. I was refering to it, had nothing to do with you.

So how do you define definition and the things that affect it?

Obvious false compromise

I wish I was mature enough to do this

 

compromise or no compromise it's pointless to argue with these guys. they're on an infinite loop of backward logic stagnated to monotony. there's no progress in any of these conversations, they keep repeating the same things over and over again as if brand new arguments whether in offense, defense or what have you to the point of exhaustion. and when they have nothing more left they start turning the conversation around and inventing stuff that was never there in the first place, presenting it as a valid argument. i don't have the patience to dedicate hours of my time to such nonsense.

 

If Jumboli and I were the same person, it would carry the multiple personality phenomenon to a new level of sophistication. If you check out earlier entries to this thread (before you came onto the scene), you'd find a heated, lengthy, and unpleasant argument between us over a subject which I won't mention, lest we get him started again. But I think you're right about lacking the patience to discuss things with folks who disagree with you.

 

Hahahaha, that is funny, i hope you're serious. He basicaly said he can't be bothered arguing with people who twist the argument and wording of others to suit there own needs.

And here you are twisting his words... his words about twisting words, beautiful.

 

Show me how I twist an argument. Where?
I quoted your own statement, made clear what the implications are and challenged you to refute it.

You never responded with anything but denial or ad hominem arguments.

And what is your newest ad hominem charge? That I and Okiefreak are the same person?

Since you suggest it... it would be more plausible to assume you two are the same person or in the same team, because for all I see: Okiefreak and likewise posters are actually playing to your hand.
With their arguments that lack Scientific Methods as much, if not more than those of your own, they in fact make posters like you appear more rational and reasonable than you actually are.

Who knows, may be two of you rub hands together in a glee while I waste my time here arguing 2 X 2 = 4

Hand waving technique, sure. What else can you do when, apparently, you have nothing to support your argument?

These guys...
Now wouldn't it be convenient to lump me and Okiefreak together? Unfortunately you can't do that since we have irreconcilably different approach and views on some principally relevant subject matter (as he pointed out as well).

What you wrote above can be defined as:

A) Empty rhetoric

B) Ad Hominem argument (argument that focuses on the persona of opponent rather than subject of discussion)

C) Part about "repeating the same thing" seems to be plagiarized from one of my earlier posts under this thread, possibly in an attempt (among other things) to hint out inconsistencies of my own.
You fail, because I am not simply repeating the same thing as a mantra without regard to what my opponents argue, but I do question any inconsistencies and fallacies squarely and unless you actually respond to the question you can't blame me for repeating the same question.

You either answer or don't have the answer to begin with, which by default refutes your earlier statement to which the question was posed.

 

I know what he said. I think it's a cop out. And if you're amused by those paradoxes, I think he has done to me, from the beginning, exactly what he's complaining about doing to him--starting with characterizing my original post as an effort to "prove" something.

 

There is nothing wrong with his complaining that someone used underhanded arguing techniques when challenging his statements.

Inconsistency arises when the claim has no basis in fact.
Any claim on it's own is neither consistent nor inconsistent, it's only in relevance to facts that it's either validated or invalidated.



Example A):

You make a claim: Dog ate your homework.

Facts: You have a dog and it did in fact eat your homework.

Conclusion: Your claim is valid

Example B)

You make a claim: Dog ate your homework

Facts: You don't have a dog and no dog has eaten your homework.

Conclusion: Your claim is invalid

 

Speaking of twisting things, notice how this whole thread has been diverted into a lengthy discussion of who twisted what, when and how--an argument about personal egos. Did I contribute to this? Yes, I plead guilty. If anyone would like to get back to a less personal mode of discussion, I'm game.

 

I am the only one who has no personal bias or ego issues when it comes to discussion of serious subjects requiring scientific, methodical approach. Alas...

 

No comment.

 

My ego boost for today. Actually even if you dont have a dog, the claim is still valid if you claim you had a dog that ate your homework. Validity simply means that if the premises are true the conclusion should follow logically.

So to say, I have a dog and my dog ate my homework is perfectly valid. If the truth is i dont have a dog, it is still valid, just not sound.

 

You do have personal bias.

 

the "roll eyes" smiley indicates to me he was being sarcastic.

 

Maybe... I can never tell with some people.

 

That's the problem with the internet, tone and body language are a huge part of communication that the forums are missing.

 

Yeah, same reason why I hate texting. The things that make communcation fun are left out. Really loses a lot of its meaning.