Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

Regardless of how you label my previous response, the fact remains that you did not irrefutably prove those comments to be in error... all you did was give an opinion.

 

No, it isn't. Your view of what "seems" means would be the the unsubstantiated opinion because you're just choosing a definition of the word that suits your means, which is calling people's opinions of things unsubstantiated.

 

My view of what 'seems' means comes from here:
"seem (sm)
intr.v. seemed, seem·ing, seems
1. To give the impression of being; appear: The child seems healthy, but the doctor is concerned.
2. To appear to one's own opinion or mind: I can't seem to get the story straight.
3. To appear to be true, probable, or evident: It seems you object to the plan. It seems like rain. He seems to have worked in sales for several years.
4. To appear to exist:"

Use a dictionary, it helps.

 

Yup, I know where it comes from. The point is that you pick and choose definitions of words that suit your agenda. We should just call you Equivocation Man.

 

Why yes, I sure did. And it's my opinion you are not objectively looking for an answer to the query you posed in the OP. Your request is irrational. Might as well ask a Xtian why they believe in Jesus without referencing the text from the New Testament.

I'll reiterate why I choose science over faith in a deity, is because the scientific method provides verifiable and falsifiable results to observations of the physical world. IOW, provides evidence to prove what is truth. Religion has no such mechanism to explain what we observe. It's merely a catch all for ignorance.

 

Name calling again? TOS rules and regulations. Well of course I do, and those that I pick and choose are in context to what is being stated. So what is your problem with definitions that are in context?

 

And it is my opinion that your opinion is irrelevant.

'rationalization' is a process whereby one "makes excuses" for his/her behavior. Well, if you did ask me that question, my response would simply be "because I want to."

Your process of 'rationalizing' is also a catch all for your ignorance of things that you speak about... ie... me, my abilities, my intellect, my beliefs, etc. Your process of 'rationalizing' is also a catch all for arbitrarily dismissing any evidence submitted by theists because you know you cannot prove what you want to prove... therefore you (the scientific community using the scientific method) rationalize (make excuses for why you can't do a particular thing).

 

Are you sure?

Do you care to provide a critique of my reiteration response to your OP query?

 

Yes! I am positive that my opinion is that your opinion is irrelevant.

Nope! If I did, that would serve as evidence that my opinion was in error, thus making your opinion relevant, which is not what I previously opined.

 

nothing can be said

You chose not to answer so that his post remains irrelevant?

 

The post was answered. Yours above is another example of the delusions you are suffering from.

 

I know find this thread is.... irrelevant.

 

It is certainly nice to be able to express opinions. Isn't it?

 

How is calling you Equivocation Man insulting or an abuse? You yourself admitted you're not bound by logic, so what problem do you have with being called Equivocation Man?

Your picking and choosing often times is not in context, at all. You just used the wrong definition for "logical" in a recent discussion between us to suggest I was saying that the Universe had some mental capacity. That isn't in context, that's just equivocation.

- - - Updated - - -

Why was I quoted in this post? Those aren't my words. Stop being disingenuous.

 

I have a screen name. Use it. If you refer to me as something other than that screen name, then you are engaging in 'name calling'. The abuse is an abuse of the TOS which places a restriction on 'name calling'.

Because 'Equivocation' is a term used in the naming of a Logical Fallacy. Therefore, you are attempting to defame my character by assigning a reprehensible tag as opposed to using my screen name.

So you say. Now show the irrefutable proof that I have been out of context in my alleged "picking and choosing".

Nice claim. Where is the irrefutable proof to support such a claim?

Must have been a glitch in the system where the system is now compacting more than one post response in any given response that was made within the same thread. Ask the moderators.

 

I will use it from now on, but you should go read up on the TOS which says nothing about name calling.

How can it be defamation if you have no problem with using the fallacies? Defamation is an intentionally false statement. Saying that you are using equivocations is not a false statement.

The claim doesn't need irrefutable proof, just evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

I will use it from now on, but you should go read up on the TOS which says nothing about name calling.

How can it be defamation if you have no problem with using the fallacies? Defamation is an intentionally false statement. Saying that you are using equivocations is not a false statement.

The claim doesn't need irrefutable proof, just evidence.

 

"4) Personal Attacks:

ATTACK THE MESSAGE, NOT THE MESSENGER - Any statement directed at or about another member of Political Forum that is derogatory in nature will be considered a 'Personal Attack'.

Derogatory comments, insults, name-calling, etc. that are, or appear in the judgement of moderators intended to be, directed personally at other forum members are not permitted."

Gee, I guess you missed that one huh?

Is referring to me by some name that is not my name a false statement? Only one problem: By changing my name (calling me Equivocation Man) a name that is not my name is not an accusation of performing the act of equivocating.

Evidence does not make something true. Ever hear of false evidence?

 

You're really hairshirting here to think "Equivocation Man" is derogatory/insulting name calling. He's merely giving you a label that characterizes your posts. It's hardly a 'personal' insult like calling someone a d-bag or even nincompoop.

 

Goody, you threw in the towel. You lose.

 

It would appear, you are the glitch and possibly being very deceitful. You didn't even quote the right person in all of the above responses. Doubtful it's a glitch, or you would most certainly see it was corrected.

 

I seriously doubt your name is your PF name, so, he would be calling you names already if it isn't.

 

I seldom use authority to make or prove an argument. Science is not a religion or a "god" it is just an idea.

Have a speculation. Create a theory. Test it. If it proves true more often than not propose it as fact. Defend it against criticism.

REPEAT.

If what you are talking about has nothing to do with that, it is not science.

 

Did I ask him for a name? No? Then he is arbitrarily placing a label on me... NAME-CALLING... I consider it an insult to be labeled something which I do not believe in. Now you can rationalize it (make excuses for it) all you want, but that does not alter the fact that IMHO he violated the TOS... which by the way he said didn't say anything about 'name-calling'. Either he lied about that, else he is ignorant of the contents of the TOS.

- - - Updated - - -

Strange conclusion you have reached. On what basis do you claim that I have thrown in the towel. I am still here and am challenging you to irrefutably prove that I have thrown in the towel.

 

Easy for you to claim that I quoted the wrong person, when you yourself don't display any evidence that would point to such an error. Your empty claim is simply that ... an empty claim ..

 

The PF name (Incorporeal) is the official name which I use. I am equally certain that your real name is not akin to the gas emitted from the rectum of a cow. So, in the spirit of equivocation, it would be OK to call you Cow Fart?