Perhaps I should start reporting every personal attack I see against myself?

No ofcourse not, attacks are only allowed to go one way.

You said that I don't think and need "improvement". That's most assuredly a "personal attack" if I've ever seen one, and I've seen some pretty iffy ones deleted/removed/what have you. You cannot reasonably deny that what you said was a personal attack, and one would hope that you, being a moderator, would recognize it as one.

But no, you're right, personal attacks are only allowed to go one way; only non-moderators make them, as you've explained.

That is not at all what I said.

I said, If you focused your brain on improving yourself, rather than on annoying other people it would be better worth having a conversation.

You have admitted in the past that you just like to be a Jerk. Its your own admission.

http://forums.lusternia.com/index.php?show...mp;#entry414762

You also said that I do not use my brain to think, i.e. that I do not think.



You're not allowed to bring that up. It's a personal attack if you say something like that!

This is known as the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem.



This is a logical fallacy known as a false analogy.


I'm still waiting to hear a logically sound argument, that isn't just written to annoy and frustrate. Something that demonstrates thinking.

You haven't actually properly addressed any of the logical arguments that have been put to you, so you can't talk.

EDIT: Also, that is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is when you denounce someone's claim by saying that there is something objectionable about the person who made the claim. Kromsh was pointing out that you were being hypocritical, therefore he was not commiting ad hominem.

I'm bringing up your past, like, HEY, you just did with me!



No, it isn't.



Plenty have been presented. You either ignored or only addressed small parts of all of them. Don't make me point out the fallacies in the majority of your argumentative posts, Daganev. Please don't make me. If you're actually attempting to apply argumentation theory, and not just throw the word "fallacy" around, then you should probably read up on it first.

Also, this is the internet. Fallacies do not exist, only more reasons to argue.

Say that again?

Which argument have I not addressed?

I'm sure you could find many that you either haven't answered, or have merely concentrated on a tiny part and tried to veer away from answering, if you were to read back through the last couple of pages.

And read the whole damn sentence. I said "Kromsh was pointing out that you were being hypocritical, therefore he was not commiting ad hominem."

You can't be serious.



To which I replied:


To which you replied:


Let's not forget about people who won't deal with paleontology because they believe that any fossilized animal that is not in the Bible was created by the Devil.

...And what Ytraelux said.

Anyway, I'm going to stop reading this thread. Arguing with you, Daganev, is pointless. You have never once properly addressed a whole post and once you realize that you're wrong, you start arguing about how we argue. Pot, meet kettle.

Ok... "So the children who are being taught Creationism in schools will suddenly, upon finishing their classes, be able to have intelligent discussions about evolution?"

No they will not be able to, just as children being taught evolution in schools will not be able to have intelligent discussions about it. Most information about evolution is not really taught in the highschool level, or even the basic College level. (i.e. Biology 101) I know for myself I left school wondering why people were all gung ho about a theory that my teacher constantly answered questions by saying "Because thats the way it wanted to be" or "We don't know how that happened, just that it happened" which to me, sounded a lot like a theory in progress. Especially compared to my physics teacher who had all sorts of wonderful examples and formulas to answer our questions. But what can you expect from highschool? It is just there to give you the basics, not give over information that you practically need a phd to really understand.

This is also true of history and sociology. I don't expect to have an intelligent discussion about Christianity after learning about the rise of the Pope in Europe.


"Let's not forget about people who won't deal with paleontology because they believe that any fossilized animal that is not in the Bible was created by the Devil" -- Can you show where this is the case? I've never heard about a school not teaching paleontology for this reason.

I must confess, that I assume that people are able to read the things I link to, and use that to better understand what I am saying. As, thats the whole point of a link, so I don't have to reinvent the wheel/restate the argument.

Any other points I didn't address which you thought were good points?

I am.

I saw three arguments.

1. Superstions cause people to be unable to think.
2. Religion gets in the way of learning science.
3. Religion leads to oppression.

I counter those three arguments with.

1. Examples of people with superstitions who can think. (Newton)
2. Examples of people who added to the Theology of Christianity AND Science (106 listed people from a not so reputable source)
3. I pointed out that non religious powers also lead to oppression, proving that opression is caused by some factor other than religion/superstion.

What other arguments where there?

First, high school science education in the US sucks miserably. It's a sad thing and I wish it wasn't the fact, but it's horrible. Second, all theories are works in progress. You expect science to be this clean thing where we know everything about, but it doesn't work that way; given all the (Mountains of) evidence we have, evolution works and is real, but if we knew everything about biology and evolution all research biologists would be out of a job, now wouldn't they?
What was that US state that's been flip-flopping between teaching ID, teaching real science, and "teaching the controversy" for about 10 years now?



1. Creationism, geocentrism.
2. See 1.
3. Just because religion isn't the only thing that leads to oppression, doesn't mean it doesn't.

You also have to understand that, for a great deal of the history of science, being an atheist was difficult, either because of societal pressure or because we didn't have the knowledge to be intellectually satisfied atheists, but many many scientists were deists; citing isolated cases (106 is a small, small number; and how many were considered heretics or just tangentially connected to Christianity? Being a monk, for much of European history, was one of the few ways to get anything in the way of an education and the time to devote oneself to intellectual pursuits.)

Ah, Verithrax. When everyone else gets bored of arguing with a clone of me with a pole up it's arse, that's been fed a shredded dictionary, a healthy dose of pompousness, we can always count on you to carry on the good fight.

I like this article. Everyone go read it.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html

I really enjoyed that! Thanks, Okin.

Wow. Not only is that a great article on its own, most of the ones it links to at the bottom appear to be major eye-openers too. Thanks!

Okin wins this thread. I think it can be closed now.

On a tangential note, which admin is in charge of the forums and moderators? A letter needs to be written.