Thinking

Stockbridge, UK

#456 Mar 20, 2014
GFY grandma's dirtbox.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
jide oni wrote:
To you all, my distraught detractors,
This is simply a litmus-test question, to ascertain whether I have ever since been posting above your head.
The question:
What do I mean by that original multiplication quiz post?
Whoever can provide the correct answer will be considered fit to gainfully interact with me in this forum; Otherwise, you should all be ashame of yourselves, and please stay off my threads, to make way for finer brains.
Thank you.

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#457 Mar 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
What then is Atheism?
A-theism, the absence of a deity or God, not a non god, not a different God, NO God.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#458 Mar 20, 2014
"Evil" is much to vague a concept to be useful. Before weighing in on whether it exists in the context of a conversation, I have to know which of the many conceptions of evil is being referenced. When I speak of when some refer too as "evil," I use more specific terms "malicious," "violent," "injurious," "intentionally cruel," and other more precise terms. Tell me how you define "evil" and then I will tell you whether I think your concept of it exists in the real world.

As to your other posts, I have already responded to their concepts with one consistent message: If you want any skeptics to accept your ideas, you must support them with sound logic. You have not done so. You assert that various laws and precepts exist but provide no evidence that they operate in the real world; that their perfection is evidence for God and that because they are God's laws, they are perfect, but fail to see inherent circularity of that argument.

This forum is heavily populated by skeptics who can be won over only by evidence and logic, which you fail to use. As such, you have no hope of winning anyone over to your point of view, and as far as I can see, you have not done so. You have ignored the first rules of good writing: know your audience and adjust your approach and style accordingly. Like many less experienced writers, you suffer from the misconception that the arguments that persuaded you must needs sway others a well. That is simply not so.

The most important attribute of good persuasive writing is clarity. The tools I mentioned exist to serve that single, simple principle. Even such basics as grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization serve to enhance clarity, not as ends in themselves. If at the end of a post, your readers tend to shake their heads and think, "Huh?" or "WTF?", as I suspect they often do, the fault is not theirs for having "untrained minds" or being unable to extract hidden truths, but yours for not making your points clear--for keeping them hidden.

I suggest that if you want to accomplish anything here, you begin anew with a more logical approach, which requires patience and hard work. Establish and, if necessary, substantiate the most basic premises upon which you intend to build up to your thesis. Until your audience agrees on a premise, it cannot be used within subsequent logical argument. Find more evidence for it or devise new logic to support it what has already been accepted.

If you review the earlier posts in this thread, you will see that I rarely attacked your ideas. I simply pointed out that you had failed to substantiate them. When you attempted to proceed as though those premises had been established, I called you on it. When you attempted to use basic logical fallacies, I called you on those as well. Rather than finding new ways to substantiate those premises, you plowed on as though you had established them and made new assertions with no attempt at support. You seemed to expect readers to believe your ideas based on your authority alone when, in the context of this forum, you had none. You then went on to claim victories that you clearly had not won. All of this places your credibility here in question.

All is not lost. If, as I suggest, you start from the beginning, establish your premises as a solid foundation, and build your logical edifice until your thesis is incontrovertibly established, you can still accomplish your goals. It won't be easy--no one here will make it easy. It may be impossible--most here think it is. But even a failed attempt that is conducted with more evidence and better logic will allow you to retire with some measure of dignity.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#459 Mar 20, 2014
Electrical Engineer wrote:
<quoted text>
I do. ;)
I expected you would. This is sixth grade stuff.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#460 Mar 20, 2014
If I remember right, the original quiz was "2x2=?", which was correctly ignored as an insult to the intelligence of the forum at large. As a counter to that insult, I pointe out that there is more than one possible answer. 2 x 2 can equal 4 or it can equal 11 depending on what number system is being used. Likewise, 1 + 1 can equal 2 or 10. I + I equals II in yet another system. Like I said, this is all late elementary school arithmetic.

More importantly, any participant who thinks it appropriate to pose litmus-test questions and pass judgement based on responses or the lack thereof is simply too arrogant to be taken seriously. I can think of no surer way to promote oneself into the dual roles of class clown and dunce.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#461 Mar 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, let me come closer:
1+1=?
Don't tell me again you can't answer this one.
what are youy counting ?

3
4
6
8
10

(depend on what you are counting)

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#462 Mar 20, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Why?
<quoted text>
For asking the question 'why?', you lose.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#463 Mar 20, 2014
Electrical Engineer wrote:
<quoted text>
Where was the multiplication?
For asking that question, you lose.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#464 Mar 20, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
"Picturesque" is not a synonym for "Makes Random Stuff Up."
You lose all.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#465 Mar 20, 2014
fadu singh wrote:
<quoted text>
He is asking you a right question that you and your fellow creationists are unable to answer.It is pretty simple that if an hypothetical supernatural entity can without a cause then a real existing universe can also exist without a cause.
Nothing comes from nothing.But your God is not nothing,He is omnipotent,omniscient and can be attributed with all the possible positive superlatives.
Ifr universe needed a creator then a God,who seems to be more complex than universe,must have needed a creator.
Nothing was created. All are eternal.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#466 Mar 20, 2014
Electrical Engineer wrote:
<quoted text>
Provide the original multiplication post...I am not doing your work for you otherwise.
Knock-out!

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#467 Mar 20, 2014
Thinking wrote:
GFY grandma's dirtbox.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
<quoted text>
You lose outright!

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#468 Mar 20, 2014
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
A-theism, the absence of a deity or God, not a non god, not a different God, NO God.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]
thanks. kudos to you! quite a mature post.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#469 Mar 20, 2014
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
what are youy counting ?
3
4
6
8
10
(depend on what you are counting)
You lose woefully

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#470 Mar 20, 2014
NightSerf,
Bravo! The former of your latest
posts was simply fantastic! Many thanks for the words of encourageent. I will do as advised.
The latter isn't out of place either, except that you also failed to arrive at the covert meaning of that terse interrogative.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#471 Mar 20, 2014
A good post has no covert messages. Clarity is always explicit. Covertness implies a sneakiness of the kind that sets little traps for the unwary. People who do that are not trustworthy, nor are they mentally healthy. As religious figures go, they are more like devils than saints.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#472 Mar 20, 2014
jide oni wrote:
NightSerf,
Bravo! The former of your latest
posts was simply fantastic! Many thanks for the words of encourageent. I will do as advised.
The latter isn't out of place either, except that you also failed to arrive at the covert meaning of that terse interrogative.
If you were a Fisher of (hu)mans, what would you say your catch is for the last month?

It seems you've hooked many.

May your fishing be plentiful in these waters and beyond.

And may not your seas be barren.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#473 Mar 21, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
You lose woefully
You are the loser here troll

Your religion is stone dead

Since: Jan 14

United States

#474 Mar 21, 2014
NightSerf,
You are totally wrong! In stylistics, individual writers have the literary licence to manifest their peculiarly distinct styles. It is a mark of literary excellence where a writer displays his wealth of imaginative creativity through the use of poetic devices to further enhance his skills.
While some writers make their mark through their exaggerated platitude, others attain literary excellence by means of lofty expressions, copious supply of metaphors, enriched with high-quality diction.
Let me draw your attention to the fact that this forum is not authors forum, and my thread is specifically concerned with god/no-god concept, so we must try as much as possible to keep strictly within the thematic confines of the discussion, at least for the benefit of all and sundry.

Since: Mar 12

Devil's hometown

#475 Mar 21, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing was created. All are eternal.
If nothing was created,then there would be no creator.Nothing can come out of nothing.But nothing can't come out of something.Your God is something that fills the void of nothingness.
Why do you self-contradict your arguments?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 3 min thetruth 1,224
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min dirtclod 14,412
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr Thinking 273
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 2 hr Thinking 37
Richard Dawkins needs to get a life 2 hr Thinking 17
God' existence 3 hr Thinking 152
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 3 hr Thinking 291
More from around the web