You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Atheism Talk - The Problems With The Uncaused First Cause / Cosmological Arguement

in #religion8 years ago

Feelings are subjective and not really applicable. It's possible to consider these things objectively.
Look at the difference in the way you communicated to me and the way I communicated to you. I made statements that disagreed with you, but didn't demean you directly. You make derogatory statements that denigrated my character. It's a somewhat veiled ad hominem attack that generally follows a lack of clear argumentation (just an observation, not an accusation). I've been debating people about this topic for a couple of decades. I understand it quite well. Yet I still offer you the respect of being a human who has to wrestle with these things for yourself. You didn't didn't return the favor at all. It's one of the worst forms of debate, and not worth entering into.
I'll leave this quote of your condescension here for your contemplation; "You haven't made a compelling argument. Just saying, "hey look at stuff, gee whiz it's complex must be designed" isn't evidence for design. The laws of thermodynamics appear to be intact despite the minuscule drop in entropy you experience anecdotally.
"Would you care to take another shot? Maybe this time actually focus on the bad argument from the post above and it's weaknesses instead of distracting with alternatives."

Sort:  

You need to grow some thicker skin. I would think after decades you would have done so. What I wrote is hardly offensive unless you are overly attached to your flawed arguments. It's possible to consider what I wrote objectively an not take offense.

"You made an argument from ignorance propped up with a false dichotomy." I find that sentence to be harsher than what I wrote previously but if you find it less condescending the message is the same.

Once again you are still choosing to avoid any actual debate on the topic at hand. I find your tactic of distraction to be dishonest. I mean you still haven't addressed the two points made in the original post.

I'd wager after decades of debating this topic you've had these objective arguments presented before and your flawed rebuttal dismantled many times over. Instead of making an on-topic counter argument you've waxed poetically with sophistry.