Originally posted by Lysergic Acid
[email protected] 24 2005, 05:31 PM
I told you that I haven't had time.
Is that so hard to understand?
Not at all, but then don't critisize others for failing to respond in that thread as well ("Oh well, enjoy your pulpit RS; you know where the legitimate debate is (first link in my sig.)").
What was the point of pointing redstar in the direction of a debate that you currently don't have time to participate in?
The point is that RS quit a long time before I ran out of time; so your statement is completely invalid.
I was simply pointing out how he was lying by definition
If that was the point you were trying to make, I'm afraid you've failed.
Really? Well you have never addressed my original point, so I am afraid your assertion is less than convincing. At least in my initial post, I was pointing to evidence that I am sure RS already knows of, in that he should be well aware of the definition of agnosticism and that his statements on agnostics conflict by definition, so he is being dishonest and is a liar, by definition, fact.
Lying, "by definition", means intentionally stating a known falsehood. I believe that redstar believed his statement that "obstinate agnostics hold out some sort of hope for theism" to be true.
Perhaps but do you simply think RS is deluding himself? I could be wrong and he could simply be convincing himself of falsehoods but by his past admission of "debate" tactics; I tend to see him as telling "his own version of the truth."
Apathetic agnosticism is a type of agnosticism and as such many agnostics find the concept of theism, irrational, improbable, non-falsifiable and or inconsequential.
To say RS is generalizing is giving him too much credit.
He is posting isn't he? Plus I challenged his lie; that is enough accomplishment for now.
But you have not shown that he was indeed "lying".
Have I not? Sure, I cannot show intent but he has been given the information prior to his statement to know that this is untrue and as such, if we where to consider this ignorance, than we could only consider someone lying by admission, assuming we believe them.
Perhaps he may have phrased it incorrectly, but he is correct in stating that agnostics, by definition, believe theism to be within the realm of possibility. If they did not then, by definition, they would be atheists ...right?
I would say agnostics do not necessarily consider theism possible. I do not consider it at all for example, because I have no evidence; I simply do not DENY it, as I see dogmatic assertions as logical fallacies.
Anyway, "holding out for theism" is not a characteristic of agnosticism and so RS is trying to use a straw-man tactic to attack agnostics and intentional or not, this is untrue.
What defiantly sets atheism apart from agnosticism is the assertion that "no gods exist."
Stop distorting this thread
Stop making personal attacks.
:lol: That is as much a personal attack as your assertions that I am avoiding debate.
I am up for a truce if you are.
RS made assertions that you never challenged and now you give me shit because I challenged his lies.
No, I "gave you shit" because you were making needlessly personal attacks in an otherwise civil thread.
Please do tell; why and where are my posts "needlessly personal attacks?"
Also; are you seriously calling RS' post civil?
I "gave you shit" because instead of providing calm, reasoned argumentation against redstar's statements, or better yet, ignoring them, you felt it nescessary to lower yourself to ad hominem attacks.
Perhaps I did lower myself but being "civil" has only resulted in RS running out of the previous debate and he is now spewing untrue propaganda. Obviously challenging him to prove his claims has only allowed for his evasion.
To be fair, you have made ad hominem attacks on my person, so I think we are in the mud together to some extent.
When I, rather courteously, suggested that you refrain from such behaviour and perhaps continue the debate on Agnosticism in the Agnosticism thread, you called me a "lackey" and worse!
You sir, where the first to call my statements hypocritical; I said your actions give the impression of being a lackey, I by no means called you a lackey. Now maybe that is a thin line to you but your evident bias, I am fairly sure would be construed that way by someone that didn't otherwise know you.
Exactly; when is the last time you asked RS to defend his claims?
Yesterday, since you asked.
Okay then; I just haven't seen you address many of his assertions in the past.
Did I call it personal?
Well, you certainly implied it when you accused me of being a "lackey", a "hypocrit", and a "liar"!
Like I said, the "lacky" was no accusation but where are these other "insults" of your person? I think I might know where you are getting one of them but I am not sure.
To be clear, it is your bias that I am trying to address.
My bias in regards to Agnosticism? I've never denied that. But that doesn't mean that we can't have a civil discussion on the subject. Certainly we are all above petty name calling and juvenile insults.
Okay, to be more specific, I was attempting to address how your bias seems to affect your perception of the exchanges in this thread.
:lol: Are you calling me a "juvenile?" I would say the "insults" I have used where completely valid, though perhaps I should have refrained, none the less. If anything, I made an effort NOT to offend you :P
If you want to discuss Agnosticism vs. Atheism, fine. If you don't, that's also fine. But, please, don't make this a personal issue, because it really isn't one for me. I was simple bothered that instead of defending your arguments, you resorted to personal attacks. It didn't matter to me against whom those attacks were directed.
I do want to and hopefully I can soon. I only brought up your bias because I thought it was impairing your perception but I suppose that is all I can do and I hope you will consider my concern. In turn, I will be more carefully consider my "insults," and to be honest, I did act out of anger as much as I did to address the falsehood.
But it does so happen that I rather agree with redstar on this issue. In light of this, I would like to have seen you actually address the issue in the thread which you started on the subject. I understand that you have been unable to do this, and I can respect this. But, please, if that is the case, could you refrain from needless flames on the subject?
Like I've said; perhaps I could have handled the issue better but this wasn't a "needless flame."
Firstly, the falsehood required attention.
Secondly, it wasn't a flame; it was relevant if maybe only too much of a provocation.
I get that you feel strongly about it, but if you are unable to addres the issue in detail, what is the point of hostile two line replies? Surely you must realize that they only serve to piss people off. No one likes being called a "liar" or a "lackey" and starting a discussion thus will only lead to anger and hostility.
Well, I was angry; I don't like to see falsehoods represented as truth, especially by those that I have seen to have a great opportunity to know the truth.
Also; I can't say that I care a great deal if RS is pleased by what I say; he became agitated in the course of a reasonable debate and left, so if calling him on his falsehoods angers him, so be it.
I was agitated when you jumped in to attacked one "opinion" over another (as I saw it) and probably over-reacted; my apologies.
If you had, instead, stated that you disagreed with redstar and planned to adress this soon in the Agnosticism thread, I would have had no problem. But that's not what you did. You not only didn't refute his claims, you didn't even try to refute his claims. You simply insulted him and left it at that.
This simply isn't true. I DID challenge his assertion by pointing out it was contradictory to the definition. I have in fact challenged him many times and he for some reason refuses to debate.
I don't think that that contributes to the discussion, I don't think that it is worthy of this forum, and I think that at some level, you must realize this.
You are right comrade :P Do keep in mind though that RS' baseless assertions go untoched often, while he refuses to address my debate.