Bad faith of the agnostic

QP! said:
AGAIN.

Twice i said the equivalent of 'X is one of many factors that may impact Y' and you replied to my post with 'so you believe X is the sole reason'.

That is not a REQUEST for a clarification. it is a dishonest restatement. I gave you a pass the first time. The second time i did not and will not.
Click to expand...
bye
 
Hume said:
Nothing angers agnostics like being asked to clarify their position.
Click to expand...
Another dishonest post proving my point.

I am clarifying with others and happy to engage in debate with them.

Your favored tool in this discussion is to layer dishonest representations on to others to prompt them to reply. While you deny it you are doing exactly that here. You cannot help yourself.
 
Ross Dolan said:
You most assuredly did.

An example: In response to my question, "Are you saying there are no gods involved in the REALITY of existence...or is there at least one?

You responded: "I have no experience of any god."

Unless you were trying to avoid the question...that is both inferring and implying such a thing.
Click to expand...
I am saying god is a belief, not a representation of an object.
 
Hume said:
Nothing angers agnostics like being asked to clarify their position.
Click to expand...
Here is my position in a much more clarified way than you have explained yours:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)
 
Hume said:
I see thread is deteriorating into personal attacks. Anyone wishing to debate without personal attacks I will engage with.
Click to expand...
So, telling you I think you must do what you just suggested I must do...

...you consider a personal attack.

A bit thin skinned for this, aren't you?
 
Ross Dolan said:
Horse shit!
Click to expand...
Ross Dolan said:
YOU are the one who has to learn how to debate...and how to make a cogent argument.
Click to expand...
I do not think he recognizes it but his method of 'debate' is simply to troll and provoke thru misstatement and lie.

It is very common in political debate where things are more confronting but in philosophical/science debate i do not engage in that.

It is simple fact that the people here who identify as agnostic are happy to engage in their opinion at length AND ARE. So saying they won't or it angers them is just a troll of them as he does not like their answers.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Here is my position in a much more clarified way than you have explained yours:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)
Click to expand...
Okay.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Here is my position in a much more clarified way than you have explained yours:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)
Click to expand...
I put the troll on ignore as we had good discussions without him.

His reply to your post a few posts from now will be to say you do not want to state your position and it angers you to do so.

it is simply to troll you as he does not have a good way to engage and debate what you said.
 
QP! said:
I do not think he recognizes it but his method of 'debate' is simply to troll and provoke thru misstatement and lie.

It is very common in political debate where things are more confronting but in philosophical/science debate i do not engage in that.

It is simple fact that the people here who identify as agnostic are happy to engage in their opinion at length AND ARE. So saying they won't or it angers them is just a troll of them as he does not like their answers.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

I'm still hoping for a reasonable, intelligent discussion of this topic. It well worthwhile...and probably more interesting than much of the stuff going on here.
 
QP! said:
I put the troll on ignore as we had good discussions without him.

His reply to your post a few posts from now will be to say you do not want to state your position and it angers you to do so.

it is simply to troll you as he does not have a good way to engage and debate what you said.
Click to expand...
As I said, I am still hoping for a more reasonable discussion. We'll where things go.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Absolutely.

I'm still hoping for a reasonable, intelligent discussion of this topic. It well worthwhile...and probably more interesting than much of the stuff going on here.
Click to expand...
Reasonable discussion means not making personal attacks or ad hominems. Hopefully, we learned this as college freshmen.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Absolutely.

I'm still hoping for a reasonable, intelligent discussion of this topic. It well worthwhile...and probably more interesting than much of the stuff going on here.
Click to expand...
Same. Philosophical and science debate are something i really enjoy but bringing the bad faith trolling and tactics to them just ruins them.

I am fine engaging with Obtenebrator, even if we do not agree. I do not think we all have to agree. But engaging honestly is necessary so the trolls go on ignore.
 
Hume said:
Reasonable discussion means not making personal attacks or ad hominems. Hopefully, we learned this as college freshmen.
Click to expand...
"Reasonable discussion" involves a hell of a lot more than that.

And since there are several instances of YOU engaging in personal attacks and ad homs here in this thread, wouldn't it be better to just put that aside and have a reasonable discussion.
 
Ross Dolan said:
"Reasonable discussion" involves a hell of a lot more than that.

And since there are several instances of YOU engaging in personal attacks and ad homs here in this thread, wouldn't it be better to just put that aside and have a reasonable discussion.
Click to expand...
Last time: I will respond to a post with NO personal attacks and NO ad hominems. I will not respond otherwise.
 
Hume said:
Writing insults in a philosophy discussion is like cheating in chess. It ruins the game.
Click to expand...
Cute, but no cigar. Your OP was offensive...and you are getting some return fire. Time to step up and be an adult posting in an Internet forum. That is an activity not suited for the faint of heart.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Cute, but no cigar. Your OP was offensive...and you are getting some return fire. Time to step up and be an adult posting in an Internet forum. That is an activity not suited for the faint of heart.
Click to expand...
I see you are not here to debate. This is not in my interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top