Will this guy understand??

[idunno]

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=88478#88478
Im trying to convince this guy that there is no god but his arguments seem like the ones of a retard. What would you tell him.
This discussion on god is further down. ignore the part on Astrology

[RobRoy]

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=88478#88478
Im trying to convince this guy that there is no god . . .

Why?

. . . but his arguments seem like the ones of a retard.

Caveat: I'm assuming you are woodwater.

His arguments are fairly standard. Not "ones of a retard", but nothing new here. He falls into some logical fallacies, but I don't think he did it on purpose. Certainly not out of a lack of intelligence, just a lack of experience.

No offense here, but except where you cut and paste other people's discussions, your arguments don't seem that well constructed. <shrug>

What would you tell him.

Caveat: I'm not an atheist.

If I'm arguing against the existence of God, or anything else, I like to start with the other person's basic premises, and build from there.

But arguing the existence of God, unless I'm asked specifically, is not something I tend to do. It's not something anyone is actually going to win.

[quixotecoyote]

"Only my woo is the true woo" eh?

[idunno]

Why?



Caveat: I'm assuming you are woodwater.

His arguments are fairly standard. Not "ones of a retard", but nothing new here. He falls into some logical fallacies, but I don't think he did it on purpose. Certainly not out of a lack of intelligence, just a lack of experience.

No offense here, but except where you cut and paste other people's discussions, your arguments don't seem that well constructed. <shrug>



Caveat: I'm not an atheist.

If I'm arguing against the existence of God, or anything else, I like to start with the other person's basic premises, and build from there.

But arguing the existence of God, unless I'm asked specifically, is not something I tend to do. It's not something anyone is actually going to win.

where exactly my arguments arent well constructed? Its obvious to me good and evil is a human construct

[RobRoy]

where exactly my arguments arent well constructed? Its obvious to me good and evil is a human construct

Right off the top of what I read, when you offered that animals know that snakes are evil. Among many other things, this is a contradiction of yourself.

Any reason why you avoided my first question?

[idunno]

Right off the top of what I read, when you offered that animals know that snakes are evil. Among many other things, this is a contradiction of yourself.

Any reason why you avoided my first question?

no, but after years of wasting time being a theist, i think i should help a few to get rid of theirs

[Wowbagger]

Show him the Humanist Manifesto: http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php

as evidence that there can be a strong morality among humans, without God. And, without resorting to "might makes right", either.

From the site:
"Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience."

You could argue that this also applies to religious values. Historically, they have been far from absolute, but change with the needs and interests of humans, over the generations, as well. (Though, sometimes their priorities are a bit different than Humanist ones.)

[I Ratant]

Only humans can be evil.
Animals are just animals.

[hgc]

Here's what I say in this situation:

I don't believe in gods because I have no reason to. If you believe, and want to try to convince me, then tell me what it is that has convinced you. If it's not backed up by what I consider to be objective (practically speaking) evidence, then I ain't buying it.

The problem with this is that most believers were raised to believe, and thus haven't conceived that theism isn't necessarily the default position.

[six7s]

no, but after years of wasting time being a theist, i think i should help a few to get rid of theirs
Some of the things that I learned in 'First Aid' might be adapted to help:


Assess the situation
Look out for any continuing danger, to yourself and others
Is there anybody to help you?

Assess your skills
If you don't know much, be careful not to do anything that might make the situation worse.

Make the area safe
For example, at the site of a train wreck you need to stop the following trains that will, otherwise, SPLAT! you

Prioritise
A train-wreck victim who is bleating heavily is obviously a pain, but a quiet train-wreck victim could be in the most serious condition and you should always attend to them first.

[Ryokan]

Only humans can be evil.
Animals are just animals.

Humans are animals.

[Kittyclaws]

That guy won't understand, may be psychologically incapable of understanding. Giving up or even questioning cherished beliefs is incredibly hard. If the beliefs are wrong, then what can we be certain of? Humans find uncertainty frightening. Therefore, I must construct arguments and justifications for my beliefs lest I be uncertain which would surely kill me.

Having tried for years, decades even, to convince myself that certain beliefs must be good and right because they seemed to make so many people happy, I conceded to my own innate skepticism and admitted that religious dogma, of any flavor, is not for me. Once I reached that point, I was able to begin to accept that I don't know and not knowing is not going to kill me.

It only took 40+ years.

[I Ratant]

Humans are animals.
.
Please... don't lump animals in the trash heap of vile behavior that characterizes humanity.
Animals can't be evil, that takes a conscious effort.

[Safe-Keeper]

I typically don't try to "convert" people, for the simple reason that I'm unable to know the consequences of doing so. A person's whole life and world view could be built around his religion. What then when that person loses it? Impossible to know, which is why I don't go around converting people.

It's a classic example of "if you don't know what the big red button does, maybe you shouldn't press it".

[slingblade]

.
Please... don't lump animals in the trash heap of vile behavior that characterizes humanity.
Animals can't be evil, that takes a conscious effort.

Evil doesn't actually exist. Just our perception and judgment of it.

If a man were to walk up to a woman he knows, snatch her baby from her arms, dash its head against a tree, and then invite his friends to come have a bite of the still-warm flesh, I imagine you'd call that evil.

What is it called when chimps do it?

If it's called something besides evil, why the distinction?

[krazyKemist]

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=88478#88478
Im trying to convince this guy that there is no god but his arguments seem like the ones of a retard. What would you tell him.
This discussion on god is further down. ignore the part on Astrology

He is not using any retarted argument, just ones that have been emitted by theologists everywhere. They are a serious threat to sound logical circuits (as any logical arguments offered as proof of the existence/nonexistence of gods), nothing more.

You cannot force him to think for himself. That takes self-motivation. No matter what kind of discussion you get into with him, on, say, the problem of evil, he can always can get away with an equivalent of 'God's ways are unknowable', which you (and me) will find pretty weak, but for him is strong because he is trapped inside religious logic and its well-honned defense/indoctrination mechanisms.

Anyway, he has full rights to believe in god(s), as we have full rights not to believe in them. If it makes him happy, and gives him his 'purpose' in life... Unless he starts proselytising, preaching that 'atheists are amoral', pushing for teaching 'creation science' or some such deranged things, what's the harm ? Religion will always be there. The only thing you can do is dull its teeth and pull out its claws. If religion is a private, personal thing, its capacity to do harm is pretty limited, and it respects the personal rights we have agreed on in our democratic societies.

[I Ratant]

Evil doesn't actually exist. Just our perception and judgment of it.

If a man were to walk up to a woman he knows, snatch her baby from her arms, dash its head against a tree, and then invite his friends to come have a bite of the still-warm flesh, I imagine you'd call that evil.

What is it called when chimps do it?

If it's called something besides evil, why the distinction?
.
Chimps, and lions, kill the nursing babies to get the mother back into estrus. The mothers don't hold a grudge.. that's the way of the chimp/lion etc. Been that way for 1000s of years.
Anything else would be unnatural! :)
.
When a man dashes out the brains of a child, it's a conscious effort that he knows is wrong, for whatever the reason for the act.
He can decide to not dash out the brains.
The animal can't make that decision, it has no capability to know good from evil.

[Myshkin]

When a man dashes out the brains of a child, it's a conscious effort that he knows is wrong, for whatever the reason for the act.
He can decide to not dash out the brains.
The animal can't make that decision, it has no capability to know good from evil.

On what evidence do you base these conclusions? How could you test the hypothesis that "the animal has no capacity to know good from evil"? How could you test the hypothesis that the a brain-dasher "knows he is wrong"?

Also, we're proceeding without a useful operational definition of good or evil. My hunch is that within some narrow definition of evil, what you say might well be testable, but statements about "good" and "evil" in general will always get bogged down in a "that's not what evil means..." quagmire.

[Robin]

.
Please... don't lump animals in the trash heap of vile behavior that characterizes humanity.
Animals can't be evil, that takes a conscious effort.
Other animals besides humans are conscious, or at least that is the best hypothesis to fit their observed behaviour. Some animals do violent acts outside the social nature of their species.

By the way, do you consider an inhabitant of a remote village, cut off from the rest of the world, who kills and eats an inhabitant of a neighbouring village as evil?

(PS - I don't think "trash heap of vile behaviour" characterizes humanity at all. Only a section of it.)

[I Ratant]

when the basher is bashing an Amelekite, or a Hutu, or a Tutsi, or a Cathar or a Serb, or a Croat, it's not to bring the bashed kids mothers into estrus.
They gonna get it too!

[I Ratant]

On what evidence do you base these conclusions? How could you test the hypothesis that "the animal has no capacity to know good from evil"? How could you test the hypothesis that the a brain-dasher "knows he is wrong"?

Also, we're proceeding without a useful operational definition of good or evil. My hunch is that within some narrow definition of evil, what you say might well be testable, but statements about "good" and "evil" in general will always get bogged down in a "that's not what evil means..." quagmire.
.
On the aforementioned Cathars....
"Sir, some of these people we're slaying are Catholic!"
"Kill them all, God will know his own!"
Legal evil, like treason, can be merely a matter of dates, and who's killing who, why.
Absolute evil, transcends cultures.

[kerikiwi]

.
On the aforementioned Cathars....
"Sir, some of these people we're slaying are Catholic!"
"Kill them all, God will know his own!"


And that is a perfectly logical statement, given a belief in said God.
Would it have been less 'evil' to kill only the non-catholics?
So this event would not be a 'good' example of 'evil'.

[I Ratant]

Conscious murder of anyone for whatever reasons... economic, political or religious is evil.
With "murder" being taking a life not in self-defense, but for one of the situations mentioned.
What would your definition be?

[cyborg]

When a man dashes out the brains of a child, it's a conscious effort that he knows is wrong, for whatever the reason for the act.
He can decide to not dash out the brains.
The animal can't make that decision, it has no capability to know good from evil.

So why did the man decide to kill the child if he "knows" it is wrong?

It would seem "knowing" "good" from "evil" doesn't stop "evil" behaviour from occurring now does it?

It's fairly apparent you want to make this oh so morally simple when it is not and cannot be.

[I Ratant]

Criminals quite frequently understand their activities are wrong, yet perform them anyway.. that's why they run away after smashing the display cases at the jewelery store and grabbing the contents.
It's no stretch at all to escalate that to murder.
It's not "drive up and park and shoot". it's drive-by and scoot.
There's excuses... the kid was a Sunni, and I'm a Shiite.. but deep down inside, there's probably twinge or two occurring, except in the total moral bankrupt.
The type that may decide invading a country on the other side of the world just to show Daddy that he is a "strong leader" also.
There's all sorts of rationalizations for performing activities one has been taught are wrong.. when there's a "higher purpose" invoked... racial purity, for instance.
The Wehrmacht did have belt buckles with "Gott mit Uns" engraved on them with the Imperial eagle grasping the swastika. I have one myself, a souvenir of my Dad's tour of western Europe, 1944 to 1945, France to Czechoslovakia.
Many of his opponents were just as decent and honorable as could be, yet did participate in the mass murders of the citizens, not soldiers, of the countries they invaded.

[cyborg]

Criminals quite frequently understand their activities are wrong, yet perform them anyway.. that's why they run away after smashing the display cases at the jewelery store and grabbing the contents.

Yeah... it's the moral twinge of guilt that makes a criminal run away - not the rational desire to get away with the goods. :rolleyes:

It's no stretch at all to escalate that to murder.
It's not "drive up and park and shoot". it's drive-by and scoot.

Non-sequitur.

There's excuses... the kid was a Sunni, and I'm a Shiite.. but deep down inside, there's probably twinge or two occurring, except in the total moral bankrupt.

You haven't investigated the psychology of killing have you?

[RandFan]

.
Please... don't lump animals in the trash heap of vile behavior that characterizes humanity.
Animals can't be evil, that takes a conscious effort. Define "evil"? Chimps will form raiding parties and go in search of a lone chimp from another group and murder him by tearing him to pieces paying close attention to mutilating the genitalia as the victim shrieks in horror. Chimps are capable of empathy and compassion. They are also capable of cruelty. Your definition will have to exclude such individuals who are self aware and who are capable of understanding that others are self aware and can experience pain.

FTR, the view you espouse, while it is not entirely without a point, is largely considered passé among anthropologists AIU. Consciousness is seen not as dichotomy of those that have it and those that don't but rather a gradient of different levels of capability.

[six7s]

Please... don't lump animals in the trash heap of vile behavior that characterizes humanity.
Animals can't be evil, that takes a conscious effort.
There ain't no-one in here but us chickens

[kmortis]

To the OP: As an atheist, why is it so important that you "correct" him? Is he making any dangerous claims? (i.e. he doesn't need to see a doc for a medical condition 'cause "God will provide!!!")

I say, shoot down the astrology claims, but leave the "disproof of Gawd" alone. It's so much verbal masturbation - fun for a moment, but unproductive and you're left with a bigger mess than you started.

[Civilized Worm]

Why is it so important that he correct him on his astrology claims?

[krazyKemist]

Why is it so important that he correct him on his astrology claims?

yeah, i can has belief in astrolegy if i wantz too !

(But what's the deal of a Real Christian(TM) believing in astrology ? Isn't it witchcraft or black magik or something ?:confused:)

[idunno]

a good poit from the guy. still, i think the fact that we need a god doesnt mean theres one

me - humans dont need god to create morality.see above

-That is not the point. The point is that without God the self-justifying morality of the murderer is every bit equal in value to the morality of the philanphropist.

I have already stated Woodwater, the problem is not that humans cannot be moral without God, but that human morality becomes bankrupt without God, because if the philanphopist and the mass-murderer both have equal claim to 'create' morality, then neither is worst than the other.

The real question Woodwater, if when there are 10 murderers and 1 one of you and you are the victim, do you really want to allow them to 'democratically' create morality.

They may believe their actions are right, they may think they are justified, they may tell everyone they are justified, but is what they do wrong Woodwater?

[I Ratant]

:not that humans cannot be moral without God, but that human morality becomes bankrupt without God,
.
Define "god".
Many very moral people operate without the concept of a god at all.

[six7s]

human morality becomes bankrupt without God, because if the philanphopist and the mass-murderer both have equal claim to 'create' morality, then neither is worst than the other.
This strikes me as a rather bizarre and nonsensical thing to say, esp from someone who also says "Im trying to convince this guy that there is no god" and "after years of wasting time being a theist"

As far as I can tell, 'morality' isn't created... 'morality', like '42 feet above sea-level', is a measurement that is specific only to one place, at one time

The real question Woodwater, if when there are 10 murderers and 1 one of you and you are the victim, do you really want to allow them to 'democratically' create morality.

Even if morality is a tangible entity, I very much doubt that debating the finer points of its definition will ever be very high on the list of 'Things To Do, Urgent!' of anyone in imminent danger of becoming a murder victim

------------------
EDIT

I have just figured out that you, Idunno (aka Woodwater?) have been copying and pasting from the other forum (http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=88478#88478) without using the quote feature... please don't! For an illustration of the confusion that can ensue, see the bits I struck out above

[six7s]

After again spending a few minutes reading the other forum, I have a hunch that the answer to the OP is 'NO'

There is no evidence to suggest that he wants to understand

On the contrary, the evidence suggests that, in order to satisfy his wants (needs?), he has decided to believe that patterns of behaviour (of not only individuals but also entire nations (wow!)) can be correlated with charts that plot (inaccurately*) the rotation of our planet in relation to the stars

Maybe my post above about first-aid and train wrecks was too subtle/weird

If so, I apologise

My aim was to illustrate that unless you have the necessary skills AND the noises made by the 'victims' correlates with their need and desire to be helped, you're wasting your time and might inflict (and suffer) more harm than good

----------
* see forums.randi.org Real Astrological Sign? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3844445)

[RobRoy]

On the contrary, the evidence suggests that, in order to satisfy his wants (needs?), he has decided to believe that patterns of behaviour (of not only individuals but also entire nations (wow!)) can be correlated with charts that plot (inaccurately*) the rotation of our planet in relation to the stars

My understanding is that they are both astrologists. One just happens to be a theist and the other an atheist.

Maybe my post above about first-aid and train wrecks was too subtle/weird

I liked it actually. A very simple way of going into any argument.

[idunno]

Krazykemist: -they are wrong because they hurt me, not because some god says so.I cannot force you to think for yourself. That takes self-motivation. No matter what kind of discussion i get into with you, on, say, the problem of evil, you can always can get away with an equivalent of 'God's ways are unknowable', which I will find pretty weak, but for you is strong because you are trapped inside religious logic and its well-honned defense/indoctrination mechanisms.


Slayer: - I never used anything close to the 'God's ways are unknowable' copout Woodwater. I said that God as creator of the universe is necceserily the ultimate decider of 'Right' and therefore of 'Wrong'. Because Wrong requires Right. Right requires a Right way for things to be, which cannot exist if the Universe is an 'accident without a cause' or whatever it is that Athiests believe.

And, they hurt you, so what? Why does it matter that they hurt you? Why should *they* care, they aren't the one's getting hurt.

If they want to hurt you, why is their position any less moral than your position of considering them hurting you wrong?

There are 10 of them and 1 of you. That is what godless morality amounts too, numbers. You are morally wrong both to object to them killing you, or to resist. Since as the larger number they are 'Society' and they have decided to kill you.

If God doesn't decide morality, but Society then this applies. Every social barbarism cannot be challenged, since it is always enshrined in the 'morality' of the society.

The moral progress of the human race has come to a grinding halt, since none can question the majority consensus on morality, since it is now the equivilant of God for the religious, as the ultimate decider of Right and Wrong.

Quote:
-Even if morality is a tangible entity, I very much doubt that debating the finer points of its definition will ever be very high on the list of 'Things To Do, Urgent!' of anyone in imminent danger of becoming a murder victim

Slayer: - Ah but it doesn't rest upon the Murder Victim, but upon a 12th person who must be able to convince the 10 not to kill him using some moral criteria.

But I don't think this is the way to get to you Woodwater. I think we deal with the pretty simply reasons that there is a God in the first place.

As in.....

To explain the existance universe, something is needed that is able to act from outside the universe and therefore is outside of the rules of the universe but yet is able to act.

Any being that is outside of all the rules, yet able to act, is Omnipotent. An Omnipotent bieng must be Intelligent (since it can obviously think), therefore is God.

[idunno]

[quote=six7s;3857481]This strikes me as a rather bizarre and nonsensical thing to say, esp from someone who also says "Im trying to convince this guy that there is no god" and "after years of wasting time being a theist"

As far as I can tell, 'morality' isn't created... 'morality', like '42 feet above sea-level', is a measurement that is specific only to one place, at one time



Even if morality is a tangible entity, I very much doubt that debating the finer points of its definition will ever be very high on the list of 'Things To Do, Urgent!' of anyone in imminent danger of becoming a murder victim

------------------


From slayer - Ah but it doesn't rest upon the Murder Victim, but upon a 12th person who must be able to convince the 10 not to kill him using some moral criteria.

But I don't think this is the way to get to you . I think we deal with the pretty simply reasons that there is a God in the first place.

As in.....

To explain the existance universe, something is needed that is able to act from outside the universe and therefore is outside of the rules of the universe but yet is able to act.

Any being that is outside of all the rules, yet able to act, is Omnipotent. An Omnipotent bieng must be Intelligent (since it can obviously think), therefore is God

[RobRoy]

As far as I can tell, 'morality' isn't created... 'morality', like '42 feet above sea-level', is a measurement that is specific only to one place, at one time

I'm confused as to why are you repeating quotes from somewhere else? Your quoting system isn't very clear as to your arguments or those of someone else. You might want to look into learning to use the quote tags. Just a suggestion.

Also, are you now giving up your original OP and trying to convince us of your stance?

[idunno]

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=88735#88735

well just go to the link

[Hokulele]

Why should people on this forum do your arguing for you? If that person is interested in a discussion with the people here, they can sign up themselves. If they are not interested, leave them alone.

[idunno]

I'm confused as to why are you repeating quotes from somewhere else? Your quoting system isn't very clear as to your arguments or those of someone else. You might want to look into learning to use the quote tags. Just a suggestion.

Also, are you now giving up your original OP and trying to convince us of your stance?

my op is simple. No personal gods.
I can accept something like Pantheism or that god is the Laws of physics but not much else

[idunno]

Why should people on this forum do your arguing for you? If that person is interested in a discussion with the people here, they can sign up themselves. If they are not interested, leave them alone.

you really believe a woo would join this forum?
I have a woo side but if im wrong i accept it, cause disproving things like astrology wont affect my life:eek:

That guy assumes that god already exists. He doesnt even question that

[idunno]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Br71xrFzo&sdig=1

this comes apropos. Debunking Hovind

[Hokulele]

you really believe a woo would join this forum?


They do all the time.

I have a woo side but if im wrong i accept it, cause disproving things like astrology wont affect my life:eek:


Heh.

That guy assumes that god already exists. He doesnt even question that


So? This is the issue most people have with Evangelism. If a Jehovah's Witness comes to my house to discuss religion, I will explain my perspective to him or her. However, I am not going to barge into their house to explain why I think they are wrong.

[RobRoy]

my op is simple. No personal gods.
I can accept something like Pantheism or that god is the Laws of physics but not much else

I'm not really one to argue with an author too heavily about their own work, but that wasn't your original post (OP) ( http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3853090&postcount=1).

I'm just trying to get a handle of exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish with this thread at this point.

[idunno]

I'm not really one to argue with an author too heavily about their own work, but that wasn't your original post (OP) (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3853090&postcount=1).

I'm just trying to get a handle of exactly what it is you're trying to accomplish with this thread at this point.
i said i was trying to show him there afre no personal gods. Whats the contradiction?

[RobRoy]

i said i was trying to show him there afre no personal gods. Whats the contradiction?

You appear now to be arguing your position on this forum, whereas your OP requested only analysis and advice for a discussion on another forum. <shrug>

Just trying to figure out what it is you want.

[six7s]

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=88478#88478
Im trying to convince this guy that there is no god but his arguments seem like the ones of a retard. What would you tell him.
This discussion on god is further down. ignore the part on Astrology

I think you've got it arse about face:

It's futile to try 'proving' (and, therefore, illogical to conclude with 100% certainty) that there is no god

Saying 'I see no evidence' to support any claims for a god is, of course, entirely reasonable... but only if your 'reasoning' is consistent. It strikes me, and perhaps him, as rather ironic that you (seemingly) have no problem accepting one brand of completely and utterly unsubstantiated woo (astrology) and yet you are so vehemently opposed to another (theism)

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Furthermore... as he wasn't shoving claims for gods in your face (instead, he asked you to define what is meant by a 'personal god') it seems (to me) rather rude to demand (a.k.a insist) that he substantiates anything

And you wonder if he will "ever understand"?

My hunch, with you as a self-appointed/deluded authority: NO

----------
ETA
The way you have been copying and pasting quotes, there is a chance that I have misinterpreted your stance on astrology... if so, whoops... but hey, your posting style is a mess

[idunno]

I think you've got it arse about face:

It's futile to try 'proving' (and, therefore, illogical to conclude with 100% certainty) that there is no god

Saying 'I see no evidence' to support any claims for a god is, of course, entirely reasonable... but only if your 'reasoning' is consistent. It strikes me, and perhaps him, as rather ironic that you (seemingly) have no problem accepting one brand of completely and utterly unsubstantiated woo (astrology) and yet you are so vehemently opposed to another (theism)

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Furthermore... as he wasn't shoving claims for gods in your face (instead, he asked you to define what is meant by a 'personal god') it seems (to me) rather rude to demand (a.k.a insist) that he substantiates anything

And you wonder if he will "ever understand"?

My hunch, with you as a self-appointed/deluded authority: NO

----------
ETA
The way you have been copying and pasting quotes, there is a chance that I have misinterpreted your stance on astrology... if so, whoops... but hey, your posting style is a mess

just like the laws of the universe work without a god so can astrology.
Regardingastrology i just keep testing.
If he doesnt know what a personal god is then he has a long way to go. After all hes only 20

[RobRoy]

ETA
The way you have been copying and pasting quotes, there is a chance that I have misinterpreted your stance on astrology... if so, whoops... but hey, your posting style is a mess

You haven't. His "style" is poor.

[idunno]

You haven't. His "style" is poor.
well then just go to the link to the discussion. Anyway i gave up on him

[six7s]

just like the laws of the universe work without a god so can astrology
Key word: can

The simple fact that you operate under the wholly illogical assumption that it does marks you as a wooist. If you can't/won't understand that, don't be surprised if your astro-buddy never understands that the whole god thing is woo, too

You haven't. His "style" is poor.Yep... poor... with bankruptcy in sight... and then 'to negative infinty, and beyond!'

[idunno]

Key word: can

The simple fact that you operate under the wholly illogical assumption that it does marks you as a wooist. If you can't/won't understand that, don't be surprised if your astro-buddy never understands that the whole god thing is woo, too

Yep... poor... with bankruptcy in sight... and then 'to negative infinty, and beyond!'

your problem is that you focus too much on key words.
english isnt my first language

[six7s]

your problem is that you focus too much on key words.
english isnt my first language

It might be your problem... it sure ain't mine

you really believe a woo would join this forum?
I have a woo side :confused:

if im wrong i accept it, cause disproving things like astrology wont affect my life:eek:

That guy assumes that god already exists. He doesnt even question thatAnd you assume astrology is valid despite no substantiating evidence whatsoever?

That's woo-speak, in any language

[idunno]

It might be your problem... it sure ain't mine

:confused:

And you assume astrology is valid despite no substantiating evidence whatsoever?

That's woo-speak, in any language
i assume nothing, im tsting it as i said

[RobRoy]

well then just go to the link to the discussion. Anyway i gave up on him

You. Your style.

Why should I go to another discussion (which I've already done at your request) to figure out what it is you're trying to accomplish in this discussion. That should be a simple enough question to answer.

But I think I will take your lead, and give up on you.

You're not here for a discussion or dialogue on this topic. You're looking for folk to support your stance against a theist, a clap on the back and an "aw-shucks, that guy is just silly and you're ever so right".

I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed.