"don't it"?

Wow, such a well thought out and intelligent response, I simply am at a
loss for words. You must be a very sad individual to hold so much
resentment and anger, it appears to be a very common link with a lot of
the atheist.

I'm quite new to this group, but it is clear already that Osprey is the
one with the resentment issue.

For the sake of discussion, I even gave Osprey the "no" answer he
wanted, but he still refuses to acknowledge getting the answer. Come on
Osprey, let's follow your script! If you still do not acknowledge
getting my no answer to your yes/no question, then the label "liar"
would apply.

It is worth pointing out that the other theists in this thread met far
less hostility even though some even used the ever annoying "the bible
is true because it's in the bible" circular argument.

I would like to know if other theists consider Osprey representative
for their point of view. If he wants to brand the behaviour of some
atheists on the internet as typical for all, it would be fair to know
for which group his behaviour is representative.

Regards,

Talence

I'm quite new to this group, but it is clear already that Osprey is the
one with the resentment issue.

For the sake of discussion, I even gave Osprey the "no" answer he
wanted, but he still refuses to acknowledge getting the answer. Come on
Osprey, let's follow your script! If you still do not acknowledge
getting my no answer to your yes/no question, then the label "liar"
would apply.

It is worth pointing out that the other theists in this thread met far
less hostility even though some even used the ever annoying "the bible
is true because it's in the bible" circular argument.

I would like to know if other theists consider Osprey representative
for their point of view. If he wants to brand the behaviour of some
atheists on the internet as typical for all, it would be fair to know
for which group his behaviour is representative.

talence@gmail.com wrote:

The truth is you simply do not want to commit to an answer so you try
to use an excuse.

In that case, you'd better read my posts again because I did give you a
clear answer and I did tell you that in my own opinion, the answer is a
clear "no". It was also explained why this question/answer process is a
silly one, as it can be applied to all sorts of situations, e.g. "does
Santa exist? yes/no" - "no" - "okay, prove it".

Even when I took your bait and gave you a clear "no", you still keep
claiming that you got no answers. From what I could extract from your
other posts, you are working along this script:

"yes" --> you claim victory
"no" --> "ok, let science prove it" (fallacy) --> you claim victory
"I don't know" --> you say you know, so you claim victory
no answer --> "atheists are cowards that won't answer questions" -->
you claim victory

It doesn't matter for the outcome how the question is answered or even
IF it is answered: in all cases, you will claim victory. That is why it
is dishonest. It is not an attempt to learn about the other person's
views, but a way to throw another fallacy at that person.

You and your fallacies have been exposed to death now. We have proven
an afterlife for one thing though, and that's for your fallacies as you
keep resurrecting them.

Do you seriously not grasp fallacies? You were given standard examples
twice and in both cases you didn't get it, even after it was clearly
explained. That means you're either obtuse or dishonest.

Regards,

Talence

Actually Talence,

All I was looking for was an honest answer,

The truth is you simply do not want to commit to an answer so you try
to use an excuse.

In that case, you'd better read my posts again because I did give you a
clear answer and I did tell you that in my own opinion, the answer is a
clear "no". It was also explained why this question/answer process is a
silly one, as it can be applied to all sorts of situations, e.g. "does
Santa exist? yes/no" - "no" - "okay, prove it".

Even when I took your bait and gave you a clear "no", you still keep
claiming that you got no answers. From what I could extract from your
other posts, you are working along this script:

"yes" --> you claim victory
"no" --> "ok, let science prove it" (fallacy) --> you claim victory
"I don't know" --> you say you know, so you claim victory
no answer --> "atheists are cowards that won't answer questions" -->
you claim victory

It doesn't matter for the outcome how the question is answered or even
IF it is answered: in all cases, you will claim victory. That is why it
is dishonest. It is not an attempt to learn about the other person's
views, but a way to throw another fallacy at that person.

You and your fallacies have been exposed to death now. We have proven
an afterlife for one thing though, and that's for your fallacies as you
keep resurrecting them.

Do you seriously not grasp fallacies? You were given standard examples
twice and in both cases you didn't get it, even after it was clearly
explained. That means you're either obtuse or dishonest.

Regards,

Talence

talence@gmail.com wrote:

Why do you lie?

Why do you?
Saying I lied, when I didn't lie, is a lie.

Osprey: you're a funny one. You're defending yourself not against a
claim, but against an example of a loaded question! It's *twice* now
that someone gave an example of a loaded question and that you thought
it was an actual accusation.

No, this "loaded question" is not going to be used as an excuse.

The truth is you simply do not want to commit to an answer so you try

to use an excuse. Very cowardly on your part if I might add.

If you truly are so confident in your position, I don't know what you
have to fear by a simple question.

Let me know when you decide to get serious and don't want to use
excuses.

talence@gmail.com wrote:

Osprey: you're a funny one. You're defending yourself not against a
claim, but against an example of a loaded question! It's *twice* now
that someone gave an example of a loaded question and that you thought
it was an actual accusation.

No, this "loaded question" is not going to be used as an excuse.

The truth is you simply do not want to commit to an answer so you try

...
Then we can use "science" and ask that it be proven there is no soul.

osprey, you're not getting it: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet"

Sorry but I don't play into stupid games, I am discussing another topic

osprey, you're not getting it: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet"
is a typical example to illustrate the kind of fallacy you're using.
Search for that example in Google and you'll find a lot of
explanations. I believe it's called "loaded question".

Niels van der Linden wrote:

Do you think there is something else after death? Such as a spiritual
place, or possibly reincarnation?

No, that's just wishful thinking.

So are you saying these things are not possible?
Are you saying for fact that after death there is nothing?

Maybe you are the one who has wishful thinking, but why one would wish
there is nothing after death I will never understand.

I don't know what happens after death; however, I do think it is highly
possible that we do have a "spirit" that does live on. When I think of
spirit, I think the spirit is a mass of energy. We know that our bodies
consist of energy, and we also know with science energy never dies.
I am not going to get into too much of a philosophical debate, you
choose to think what you want and believe. I am just asking your
opinion.

Did you know the conscious is basically subconscious, which is like ripples
in a pond? And that we actually have a major problem having any (if any)
control over our subconscious? And that the subconscious is basically status
+ input = output? Just before you (think you) decide to do something, there
already is activity building up. Al sensory input gets tossed into the
subconscious and might lead to actions.

The evolution from sponge to mammal

Can you prove that evolution began from a sponge?
How did a sponge produce the first sperm and egg to start the human
race?

(0 to complex nervous system) doesn't

have an *insert-soul-please-moment*; it's just a gradually increasing
consciousness (ultimately to *self*consciousness). Ever seen an ant wander
off purpously for some alone-time? Nope; it's just your typical
*must-find-food* syndrome (or whatever kind of ant it is). Ever seen a
news-coverage *without* human violence? Nope; it's just your typical
*caveman-subconscious* on the loose.

Niels