stopbush
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-10-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #64 |
| 66. You're now conflating evidence with proof. |
|
We were discussing evidence.
BTW - I caught this from you in an earlier post: "My point here is not to discuss history or philosophy or psychology, but to point out that there most certainly are other ways of thinking."
Looks like your "point" is to make unfounded assertions about history and then declare off limits any challenges to your whole-cloth assertions. You still have offered no response to my question from yesterday as to what history is being ignored when you wrote, " I think you prove my point because you ignore centuries of philosophy both pro and con, plus history and elements of other ways of knowing which solidify arguments."
So, Mr Bum, what history is being ignored in the atheist view that god doesn't exist? We're waiting.
|
| -Thom Hartmann Debates Christopher Hitchens On Religion. How Religion Poisons Everything? |
thomhartmann |
Apr-09-09 09:49 AM |
#0 |
 -
That was a good discussion. Thanks for the post. nt |
Ilsa |
Apr-09-09 10:02 AM |
#1 |
| -
I think Hitchens handed Hartmann his ass on a plate. |
Bonobo |
Apr-09-09 10:06 AM |
#2 |
 -
I'm in total agreement. |
sellitman |
Apr-09-09 10:31 AM |
#4 |
| -
Agreed. I like both Hartmann and Hitchens but Hartmann is a fuzzy thinker... |
The Night Owl |
Apr-09-09 11:02 AM |
#8 |
 -
I Think The Discussion Was More Evenly Balanced Than That |
lostnotforgotten |
Apr-10-09 04:29 AM |
#61 |
| -
Hartmann comes off |
borelord |
Apr-09-09 10:09 AM |
#3 |
| -
Sorry, Thom |
mrfocus |
Apr-09-09 10:35 AM |
#5 |
| -
This is only the second time I've ever seen Thom lose an argument. |
Ian David |
Apr-09-09 11:03 AM |
#10 |
| -
I agree, and I LOVE Thom Hartmann. |
ihavenobias |
Apr-09-09 12:58 PM |
#13 |
| -
Radical atheism is becoming a religion without a god nt |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 12:48 PM |
#12 |
| -
Whole-cloth hokum. |
stopbush |
Apr-09-09 02:19 PM |
#28 |
| -
Atheism as religion? |
shellfishgene |
Apr-09-09 10:35 AM |
#6 |
| -
Actually that is true ...Hinduism makes room for Atheism ... If you do not believe |
TheCoxwain |
Apr-09-09 11:35 AM |
#11 |
| -
Huge Hartmann fan. |
tabatha |
Apr-09-09 10:53 AM |
#7 |
| -
Actually I think Hartmann asked the questions that need to be asked |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 01:03 PM |
#14 |
| -
Right, Hitchens applies the standard we all consider to be the best for 99.9% of the life. |
ihavenobias |
Apr-09-09 01:06 PM |
#15 |
| -
There is nothing rational about ignoring other epistemologies, |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 01:17 PM |
#16 |
| -
The problem is |
ihavenobias |
Apr-09-09 01:28 PM |
#19 |
| -
I think you prove my point because you ignore centuries of philosophy |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 01:44 PM |
#21 |
| -
What history is being ignored? |
stopbush |
Apr-09-09 01:57 PM |
#22 |
| -
That's what I'm talking about. nt |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 02:00 PM |
#23 |
| -
Be specific. You say centuries of history are being ignored. |
stopbush |
Apr-09-09 02:06 PM |
#24 |
| -
Exactly. |
ihavenobias |
Apr-09-09 02:12 PM |
#26 |
| -
More atheistic blather. We know what's true and don't tell us |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 02:19 PM |
#29 |
| -
Perhaps for your 63rd post you could actually respond to the |
stopbush |
Apr-09-09 02:24 PM |
#30 |
| -
I'm so glad you used the term ad hominem arguing because that's exactly the way |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 02:47 PM |
#31 |
| -
Wow! You've added a healthy dose of the straw man to your large serving of ad hominem. |
stopbush |
Apr-09-09 03:16 PM |
#33 |
| -
Yes, "irregardless" is a word. Maybe slang, but definitely used for |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 05:13 PM |
#38 |
| -
Still won't answer the question, will you? |
stopbush |
Apr-09-09 05:25 PM |
#40 |
| -
Hartmann didn't do well at all here |
spiritual_gunfighter |
Apr-09-09 01:20 PM |
#17 |
| -
I would say that's because you are partial to the atheist argument. |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 01:25 PM |
#18 |
| -
Funny. |
ihavenobias |
Apr-09-09 01:29 PM |
#20 |
| -
Obviously you are partial |
spiritual_gunfighter |
Apr-09-09 02:07 PM |
#25 |
| -
I definitely apologize for my unreasonable assumption. nt |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 02:58 PM |
#32 |
| -
It's okay n/t |
spiritual_gunfighter |
Apr-09-09 03:31 PM |
#34 |
| -
Personally, I love Thom, and I can't stand the "Gin-soaked popinjay"... |
PassingFair |
Apr-09-09 05:42 PM |
#42 |
| -
Thanks for the vid. |
swishyfeet |
Apr-09-09 11:02 AM |
#9 |
| -
Like many religionists who attempt to debate Hitchens, |
stopbush |
Apr-09-09 02:13 PM |
#27 |
| -
I agree with Hartmann |
mr_smith007 |
Apr-09-09 03:51 PM |
#35 |
| -
I have never met an "atheist" who asserts that there is NO possibility of the supernatural... |
PassingFair |
Apr-09-09 04:26 PM |
#37 |
| -
Exactly. In fact, were the supernatural to be proven, it would take its |
stopbush |
Apr-09-09 05:21 PM |
#39 |
| -
That wasn't the point of my |
mr_smith007 |
Apr-09-09 06:25 PM |
#44 |
| -
You can rule out the possibility of BELIEVING in it, though. n/t |
PassingFair |
Apr-09-09 06:27 PM |
#46 |
| -
Well if evidence |
mr_smith007 |
Apr-09-09 07:15 PM |
#48 |
| -
Science asserts proven, immutable truths all the time, like the laws of physics. |
stopbush |
Apr-10-09 12:26 AM |
#55 |
| -
That is the part |
mr_smith007 |
Apr-09-09 06:15 PM |
#43 |
| -
There is a big difference between an "atom" and an "omnipotent being". |
PassingFair |
Apr-09-09 06:25 PM |
#45 |
| -
I am not |
mr_smith007 |
Apr-09-09 07:14 PM |
#47 |
| -
Excuse me, but the idea of the atom was first broached in India in 600 BCE |
stopbush |
Apr-10-09 01:00 AM |
#57 |
| -
Your definitions of agnosticism and atheism are flawed. |
whathehell |
Apr-09-09 08:16 PM |
#51 |
| -
I think that your definitions are the flawed ones. |
PassingFair |
Apr-09-09 08:31 PM |
#53 |
| -
"The only real difference between the two is that one has a more negative connnotation to believers" |
whathehell |
Apr-10-09 04:11 AM |
#60 |
| -
According to Y-O-U. |
PassingFair |
Apr-10-09 08:09 AM |
#63 |
| -
Yes -- as your "semantics" are according to Y.O.U. |
whathehell |
Apr-10-09 03:53 PM |
#71 |
| -
You are quite wrong about Hitchens, who does not assert a |
stopbush |
Apr-09-09 05:41 PM |
#41 |
| -
It totally depends on what can be considered as evidence. |
humblebum |
Apr-09-09 07:37 PM |
#49 |
| -
Well, you're wrong. |
stopbush |
Apr-10-09 12:41 AM |
#56 |
| -
You obviously know little about "proof"as related to philosophy |
humblebum |
Apr-10-09 09:18 AM |
#64 |
| -
You're now conflating evidence with proof. |
stopbush |
Apr-10-09 12:36 PM |
#66 |
| -
Are you telling me that you can have evidence without proof and |
humblebum |
Apr-10-09 02:44 PM |
#67 |
| -
Care to respond to my question about history? |
stopbush |
Apr-10-09 02:52 PM |
#68 |
| -
If Hitchens is simply asserting that "evidence doesn't exist for god's existence" |
whathehell |
Apr-10-09 03:58 AM |
#59 |
| -
That is an absolute truth which is based on the Scientific Method |
humblebum |
Apr-10-09 09:25 AM |
#65 |
| -
Correct...and they are very limited. |
whathehell |
Apr-10-09 03:49 PM |
#70 |
| -
Exactly. |
whathehell |
Apr-09-09 07:51 PM |
#50 |
| -
Hartmann is my favorite radio host....by FAR. |
PassingFair |
Apr-09-09 04:05 PM |
#36 |
| -
You seem to misunderstand the difference between atheism and agnosticism |
whathehell |
Apr-09-09 08:23 PM |
#52 |
| -
Hitchens was making the case that there is no evidence for the existence... |
PassingFair |
Apr-09-09 08:36 PM |
#54 |
| -
"no evidence for the existence of a supreme being" |
whathehell |
Apr-10-09 03:29 AM |
#58 |
| -
Of course there was "evidence". That's why science was used to bring it to light. |
PassingFair |
Apr-10-09 08:07 AM |
#62 |
| -
No, dear...there's no "of course" about it... |
whathehell |
Apr-10-09 03:40 PM |
#69 |
| -
. |
PassingFair |
Apr-10-09 05:08 PM |
#72 |
| -
First of all, it's "belief", not "believe" |
whathehell |
Apr-11-09 07:38 AM |
#73 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread