Hi, I'm Mick

[Gallstones]

Agree.

I specifically said I didn't think Mick should have been banned.

Apparently the nuance that one can think someone is trolling and should receive a warning, but not be outright banned is lost on Ratskep mods, most of the people in this thread, etc.

Please instruct us vulgar and ignorant proles oh Optimus Prime.
Be the example of nuance you seek.

No, sorry, I'm not going to waste my time swatting flies. This thread, until I get bored, is it.

Predictable and unremarkable.
We'll see if you can hold to that.
My money is on "no".

I'll take that bet...

You owe me. He came back and wasted more time as predicted. With even more words, which means even more time. He has no self control.

[Gallstones]

Skirting-around within the letter of the law whilst pissing all-over the spirit of the law is trolling.

You're a troll Mick; and also an utter cunt.

Fuck off.

Holding up a mirror is "trolling" to those who don't like the reflection.

Hang on there Gallstones, the "Rhetorical Mirror" is my device, remember? I invented it way back in RDF days. Haven't used it in a while. Thanks for reminding me of it.

Patent pending?

[Mr.Samsa]

To be fair, arguments are evidence. It's just logical evidence rather than empirical evidence.

"Arguments" aren't necessarily evidence. Logical reasoning can be evidence.

Sure, it has to be used to support one position over another but I was just trying to say that, when used that way, they are evidence.

I'd really prefer empirical evidence, mostly because I don't want to wade into the shit pile of idiocy that is religionist logic. It's all been answered before by people who actually care about religious philosophical arguments. If he's got some new logical reasoning, then I suppose I'll listen to it (as much as I'd prefer to spend my time doing something more productive).

Fair enough but I don't think it makes sense to prefer one type of evidence over another. The evidence is either applicable or it's not, and with the question of god as most religions present it (at least the major ones), there is no empirical evidence that could be used to support or disprove them.

[Mick]

I said "evidence", not arguments.

Enough of the hand waving. I'll make the same point as I did earlier.

I'll offer evidence. You will deny it. We will both be unimpressed with the case of the other. Then what? You go on feeling smug? I can do that too. You will claim I offered no evidence. Fine. I will deny, and then claim that you offered no good reason to reject my evidence, that your case is weak and unsupported. Where does this leave us?

I'd rather make the historical note that professional philosophers have been arguing about this for 2500 years and that it has thus become a perennial issue in philosophy; and so it seems that reasonable people can disagree.

[FBM]

No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.

The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?

[FBM]

I said "evidence", not arguments.

Enough of the hand waving. I'll make the same point as I did earlier.

I'll offer evidence. You will deny it. We will both be unimpressed with the case of the other. Then what? You go on feeling smug? I can do that too. You will claim I offered no evidence. Fine. I will deny, and then claim that you offered no good reason to reject my evidence, that your case is weak and unsupported. Where does this leave us?...

If you're like practically every other theist, it leaves you in denial. Anybody can refuse to acknowledge that their logic is flawed and their evidence lacking. However, to do so you have to make some profound claims about the unreliability of logic and evidence or deny that a logical fallacy you make is such. Your claim is that there is a god. Others here see no reason to believe you. Give us a reason.

[Mick]

No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.

The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?

That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.

[FBM]

No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.

The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?

That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.

What, that theists are engaged in magical thinking, which is a characteristic of adolescent mentality? You're convinced, despite an utter and complete lack of evidence, that an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity is watching you from another dimension and who works miracles when things suit him. What part of that is NOT magical thinking?

[Mick]

No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.

The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?

That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.

What, that theists are engaged in magical thinking, which is a characteristic of adolescent mentality? You're convinced, despite an utter and complete lack of evidence, that an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity is watching you from another dimension and who works miracles when things suit him. What part of that is NOT magical thinking?

So, we can at least agree that your previous claim wasn't what you initially said, what I took issue to. Great.

Going back to the above post, you're not offering anything more than baseless assertions snuck (or loaded into) questions. I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary, and maintaining their skepticism without good evidence. bare assertions are cheap.

You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No, since that was never the proposition I took issue with. Don't act dense. You know exactly what needs to be evidenced.

The post you responded to said that there are lots of people with mature skills in some areas and who lag behind, developmentally speaking, in others. That's my claim, so that's what needs to be evidenced. What are you talking about?

That was not your claim. You were a bit more exacting about who these people are. Look back.

What, that theists are engaged in magical thinking, which is a characteristic of adolescent mentality? You're convinced, despite an utter and complete lack of evidence, that an invisible, undetectable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity is watching you from another dimension and who works miracles when things suit him. What part of that is NOT magical thinking?

So, we can at least agree that your previous claim wasn't what you initially said, what I took issue to. Great.

Going back to the above post, you're not offering anything more than baseless assertions snuck (or loaded into) questions. I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary, and maintaining their skepticism without good evidence. bare assertions are cheap.

No evidence is needed to have skepticism. Evidence is needed to dispel skepticism!

[FBM]

...I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary...

Which is?

You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.

Yes, I can and I did. Yes, they do, and yes it is. At least until you cough up some evidence.

[Mick]

...I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary...

Which is?

You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.

Yes, I can and I did. Yes, they do, and yes it is. At least until you cough up some evidence.

Oh? You can do that. Then so can I. I will just claim my bare assertions about your magical thinking to be true until you provide evidence to the contrary.

See what happens when we both take your puerile approach? Now we can both sit smugly, with a sense of accomplishment despite the fact that we have accomplished fuck all.

[FBM]

...I can do the same, accusing atheists of magical thinking, denying obvious evidence to the contrary...

Which is?

You can't just say that theists believe this or that with a complete and utter lack of evidence. That's not how this works.

Yes, I can and I did. Yes, they do, and yes it is. At least until you cough up some evidence.

Oh? You can do that. Then so can I. I will just claim my bare assertions about your magical thinking to be true until you provide evidence to the contrary.

See what happens when we both take your puerile approach? Now we can both sit smugly, with a sense of accomplishment despite the fact that we have accomplished fuck all.

That's exactly right. You haven't accomplished anything at all by returning my comment like an adolescent schoolboy. You could make some progress if you produced some evidence for your god claim. The reason you're playing these rehetorical games is that you know very well that you can't produce any evidence.

[FBM]

Just to lighten the mood a tad:

[JimC]

Seth has been suspended for 48 hours for a variety of personal attacks on members, in this thread and others, coming after a recent 24 hour suspension.

I don't care about the one's he did on me. And I suspect most of his were just in response to other personal attacks. Seems a bit unfair to target him and not others too. Unless someone specifically reported him and not others.

There were around 8 reports, and response is not always a counter argument.

Anyway, I'm sure he will return chastened and repentant...