Internet on Einstein

[Scythe Death]

But is anybody else?

I don't know. Maybe if I make this like... a lot more.. like.. offensive.

[Little_Miss_1565]

I don't know. Maybe if I make this like... a lot more.. like.. offensive.

It's already pretty offensive. You've already clearly made up your mind on the subject so calling it a "debate" is patently false, and only designed to lure someone into having an argument with you.

[Scythe Death]

It's already pretty offensive. You've already clearly made up your mind on the subject so calling it a "debate" is patently false, and only designed to lure someone into having an argument with you.

Your point?

[Mota Boy]

Saying that belief or non-belief signifying characteristics in people is silly is even more silly; it ignores the fact that it's a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking.

It's, unfortunately, not as simple as you wish it was since both grounds (theism and atheism) have an inherent difference in thought. It's not as black and white. It's certainly untrue to say that whether you believe or not doesn't make a difference; there's a whole complex of thought behind this.

It is deplorable that people are eschewing Einstein for such arbitrary reasons. I say arbitrary because arbitrariness is the sole foundation of belief in people.

Taking things one at a time here, you are saying that belief or non belief in an individual is a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking, while also being completely arbitrary and thus a silly reason to criticize someone.

You are contradicting yourself so heavily that it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

[Little_Miss_1565]

Your point?

My point? What I described is trolling.

[Jebus]

Oh now I remember you. You're that guy. What's your obsession with this?

I mean that religion is for the weak minded in the way that it is an escapism for death among many things.

The thing that bothers me about debating on the internet is that you can always backtrack to one of your points and say you meant something else when a flaw is found in your argument.

The entire point of your first post was basically religion is for idiots and closed minded people and Einstein agrees with me. So idiocy and close mindedness what I naturally inferred by "weak minded." Then you change your definition of weak minded to "escapism from death." What does that have to do with anything you said in your original post?

[Scythe Death]

Taking things one at a time here, you are saying that belief or non belief in an individual is a very important characteristic of the foundation of a person's way of thinking, while also being completely arbitrary and thus a silly reason to criticize someone.

You are contradicting yourself so heavily that it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

You're worthless. It's not arbitrary, it's basic understanding of the human mind. It's not arbitrary at all. Most of the people don't have a belief just because yes.

You're trying too hard to bring arguments together.

My point? What I described is trolling.

Yes.. so?

Actually, I'm trying to be a little more serious about this than I was last time. I want some good arguments you guys can give me instead of trying to make you guys mad.

The thing that bothers me about debating on the internet is that you can always backtrack to one of your points and say you meant something else when a flaw is found in your argument.

The entire point of your first post was basically religion is for idiots and closed minded people and Einstein agrees with me. So idiocy and close mindedness what I naturally inferred by "weak minded." Then you change your definition of weak minded to "escapism from death." What does that have to do with anything you said in your original post?

What a good straw man.





That's a logical fallacy by the way.

[wheelchairman]

You're worthless. It's not arbitrary, it's basic understanding of the human mind. It's not arbitrary at all. Most of the people don't have a belief just because yes.

You're trying too hard to bring arguments together.


Yes.. so?

Actually, I'm trying to be a little more serious about this than I was last time. I want some good arguments you guys can give me instead of trying to make you guys mad.


What a good straw man.





That's a logical fallacy by the way.

Speaking of logical fallacies. (And a Straw man argument is not a logical fallacy.)

However an ad-hominem comment is a logical fallacy. Instead of picking apart his argument, you pick apart the man. It's a dirty method of debating, as a method of argument it's quite worthless in negating anything, and it changes the atmosphere of the debate greatly.

Besides why should someone debate with you when the history of your debates here consists of trying to make people angry? Your pretentious holier-than-thou attitude is repugnant and you've offered no rebuttals so far to anyone who's replied to you.

With this kind of behavior I don't see why anyone should take you seriously, at all?

[Scythe Death]

Speaking of logical fallacies. (And a Straw man argument is not a logical fallacy.)

However an ad-hominem comment is a logical fallacy. Instead of picking apart his argument, you pick apart the man. It's a dirty method of debating, as a method of argument it's quite worthless in negating anything, and it changes the atmosphere of the debate greatly.

Besides why should someone debate with you when the history of your debates here consists of trying to make people angry? Your pretentious holier-than-thou attitude is repugnant and you've offered no rebuttals so far to anyone who's replied to you.

With this kind of behavior I don't see why anyone should take you seriously, at all?

Hey look, someone doesn't understand ad hominem completely. My argument wasn't "you're worthless", that was an additional comment. My argument is the sentence next to it. It brings into conversation that what he believes is arbitrary actually has a viable basis in psychology. (Ad hominem is always the first thing people associate with logical fallacies, curiously.)

How isn't the "straw man" a logical fallacy when what this guy is doing is altering the context of my argument into something he can knock down while the straw man twisted reality in such a ludicrous manner, it's simply delusional to apply into my post and, even worse, cling to it.

You're poisoning the well (a logical fallacy) by thinking my purpose is to troll. I've already stated that I'm trying to have an actual argument. I apologize for the past trolling.

I've rebutted Mota's belief that faith is unrelated to a person's way of thinking albeit perhaps not in the quality or explanation that I should. What is there to rebut about Jebus' straw man?

I'm quite sure you understand the premises, let's see an actual argument from you.

[Jebus]

What a good straw man.
That's a logical fallacy by the way.

Oh, good for you. You know what straw man means.

How about answering my question and explaining how I misinterpreted you? You start off with saying how Einstein thinks religion is foolish and it helps you confirm what you already believe. Then you say religious people should be more open minded because Einstein backs you up. Stop we me when I'm wrong. Then you bring up an isolated incident of people attacking Einstein's intelligence. Finally you say people with religion are weak minded based on those points. Don't you think it's a fair conclusion that by weak minded you meant idiocy and closed mindedness? Where did I twist your words?

So I point out the inherit irony in your post because a catholic priest (Georges Lemaître) of all people actually came up with a central point in cosmology and in your humanistic world view. I mean, how more open minded do you have to be?

You respond by saying that by weak minded you actually meant escapism for death. Now tell me where in your first post does it back up your new definition for weak minded?