If they expect other people to show evidence for their positions in theology, in business, and in court, I don't see that they can fault others for expecting the same of them. One playing field. No gradient.
You realize, alas, the the rules for each of those realms is different. Faith is OK in theology, proof beyond a reasonable doubt in court, and in business, if it pays, it plays.
The argument from don't you have better things to do than spend your time on the internet.
Yes, I would rather be surfing but the swell, wind and daylight are inconstant, and there are fallacious arguments standing in the way of my enfranchisement, so while I have to wait out onshore winds and night time, I can take on my share of the bullshit.
Surely I am not standing in the way of your enfranchisement from the other side of the world. I like the combat, so do you. Fess up.
The value of an endeavour is the destination. The value of a short-cut is only whether or not it makes the destination easier to reach. Do you acknowledge that you were incorrect to attempt to make an argument out of simple disdain for short cuts?
My argument was not against the short cut, it was that taking it never engaged the religious. To use the metaphor, you ran a victory lap around the top of the hill while the opponent waited unengaged below.
Yes, I agree that the NOMA concept suffers from a lack of clear definition as well as a lack of willingness on the behalf of theists to respect scientific efforts to understand the world.
I think it is more an attempt for theists to respect science but leave space for their religious beliefs, i.e. the God of the Gaps.
I didn't need a simile about strawberries to know that condemning fellatio is ridiculous.
My frenemy, none of this is necessary.
The Dalai Lama is an authority because people heed him. The history of that authority was irrelevant to this situation. As were strawberries and the fact that finding strawberries bitter is a genetically linked trait.
So you decide what is relevant and what is not? You arbitrarily introduce the Lama into the discussion and then suddenly think you can make rules about what can said about him? And you call me a bully? Really son, you need to check yourself.
Interesting. We leave it off up here, but made fun of our president for adding one a few years ago. We should have sent him to you.
I have previously opened our correspondence with reminders of past encounters, but having found it unproductive, launched into this thread as if I'd never encountered you before. You brought up the past because you, admittedly, enjoy riling me.
My arguments aren't delicate flowers. They don't need gentle treatment, but if you are going to dismantle them, you need to address their content, not my mood or my language.
I enjoy everything about you. Don't take it to much to heart.
I don't start with conclusions. I start with premises and expect others to do the same.
This is the problem with the king of the hill argument. The premise is valid, but it is not shared, so it makes a poor starting point. If someone were to start with the premise that god exists you would not accept it either. I did suggest a (admittedly somewhat bogus) way for God to be introduced as a hypothesis for fine tuning. At that point you would have to at least explain why the hypothesis should be rejected.
Manners are not the measure of a person's ethical merit. Anyone who tries to gain advantage over others through intimidation, whether physical or mental, well spoken or profane, is a bully.
The whole point of argument is to gain advantage over others. What in the world do you think we are doing here. Even your accusation of bullying is an attempt to gain advantage over me. I am not complaining about the tactic, just pointing out it how silly it is.
As mentioned earlier, I have learnt not to do this. Can you?
Do you have the "I'm rubber and you're glue" meme? If not, congratulations on inventing it in the southern latitudes.
When has anyone ever chilled out when told to do so by someone with whom they have been frustrated? Passive aggressive attempt to appear concerned is passive aggressive.
Sorry if I seemed concerned. You're big enough, and smart enough, to deserve no pity. And, IMHO, that is a good thing. I may make fun of your arguments Busker, but I don't patronize you. I think you are a flawed but passionate and dedicated advocate. I would say more, but you would look for the knife in the praise. I honestly think anger is your weakness, and your defensive vitriol against me could hardly be more misplaced. Your life, your choices.
The fact that you don't believe something is not evidence against that thing. The argument from incredulity cannot be used to assert that what you think is true.
I didn't present my opinion as a proof, just an opinion, and an invitation for you to do more than sputter on about it.
We can't know, because if that is the case, they don't come back. It is easy to measure the effect of discrimination against particular demographics. Sexism in skeptical circles is well documented and the ratio of male to female online skeptics is evidence of that problem. You are indiscriminate in your blustering, so identifying gaps in the ranks of forum posters due to your influence would be harder to quantify.
Again, I am sure that this means something to you. All I am getting is that you were complaining a while ago about me saying something about the Dalai Lama before, and now you are using sexism as some sort of analogy for me scaring away all the people who agree with you and making an argument for which you have no evidence or proof. I guess we- excuse me- I, since who else is reading, are supposed to take this on faith. Based on principles you expouse, I will assume the null hypothesis in this matter.
That does not mean that you are not a bully.
No, it means that there is only one data point. You. Which makes this an assertion without support.
Please provide evidence of my use of violent language. Why is contempt automatically bad? I hold many people in contempt for what I think are good reasons. You are nothing special in that sense, and I see no reason to clothe that contempt just because you think manners equal ethics.
Not pissing on me if I was on fire is a violent image, although I admit I did not accuse you of setting me aflame. Contempt is fine, unless it is merely a cover for weakness in argument. And manners have their uses in social situations. The person who slops food on their chest is much less likely to impress in company, however honest it makes them feel.
Bullies attempt to make a gradient in their favour where a level playing field should exist.
Losers complain about the slope of the field. How in the world do you think the geometry of the playing field can be altered in a two person conversation? Oh, is that an argument from incredulity? I meant it as an expression of contempt for your argument. I don't think you are a bully, after all. Why would I? How could anyone who argues that they should have the hard won space at the top of the hill possibly be confused with someone who didn't want a level playing field?
Could you possibly have no idea how inconsistent your arguments are? Don't get angry at me, I am only trying to show you.
Yes, I did fall into your language trap and started to use the hill analogy you falsely applied to the use of the null position. I have already applauded this ploy, but see it now as an attempt to make a gradient in your favour where a level playing field should exist.
If by my "language trap" you mean your unforced error, I agree. See above for criticism of your level playing field image.
I agree. Credence has to be won by all comers making all claims by testing them against the null position. To accept the burden of rejoinder before the burden of evidence has been met flies in the face of the history of all philosophical, logical and scientific endeavour, and requires that all claims be given equal credence from the word go. Too many claims, too little life. Evidence or GTFO.
All philosophical and logical endeavor? There were no religious philosophers, scientists or logicians? You astound me. A fool's paradise is still a paradise, if you have the qualifications for entry.