{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
8/3/2013 8:45:08 AM
3
It's not that hard to prove. I believe in my religion, and I believe in science. Therefor OP is wrong.
English
-
So are you going to provide a retort to any other replies you got for this comment?
-
None of them really warrant a reply, they're all just 1 sentence replies of disagreement that were made over a month ago.
-
They're completely valid criticisms. You made a statement which was subsequently refuted, I don't really see how you're content just leaving them.
-
It wasn't refuted, it was contested, and I didn't have a sufficient counter nor did I care enough to try to think of one, since others in this thread already have.
-
Yes, it was. And no, they haven't.
-
Yeah, because all of your posts are just rife with wonderfully written paragraphs providing citations to every claim you make.
-
>implying that I think they are
-
I wasn't implying that. I'm telling you that you need to get off your high horse. You provide one-sentence posts stating your stance as usual, and people give one sentence criticisms of your stance, as usual. The members of S7s usually provide more than a single sentence, but Seggi's post has one sentence and does its job just fine. You're in no position to say that other peoples' one-sentence posts don't warrant a reply when people have done the opposite towards your one-sentence posts for a while now.
-
I didn't reply because I don't have a response, it's as simple as that.
-
So would they warrant a reply if you had a response? And if so, does that mean you didn't know how to defend your stance even with Seggi's civil criticism?
-
Other people in this thread did a better job defending my stance then I could already, so I don't feel the need to do so myself. Also, the poll speaks for itself anyway.
-
[quote]Other people in this thread did a better job defending my stance then I could already, so I don't feel the need to do so myself.[/quote]Then after reading other peoples' responses, you should be able to defend your stance yourself with no problem. [quote]Also, the poll speaks for itself anyway.[/quote]What is that supposed to mean?
-
The option 'Yes, science and religion are compatible' is winning the poll, and most of the users on the site are atheists, so even most atheists believe they are compatible.
-
Again, how is the results of the poll relevant? [quote]and most of the users on the site are atheists, so even most atheists believe they are compatible.[/quote]First of all, you'll need a citation to that claim, and you shouldn't cite a poll where a minority is more likely to vote and be outspoken (a minority in society, not the site). And second of all, you can't prove that most atheists believe they are compatible unless every person who votes in the poll is irreligious. If 90% of Christians and 30% of atheists (random percentages) vote yes and those percentages together make up the majority, that doesn't mean a majority of atheists believe they are compatible.
-
Don't ask me for a citation, you know very well that this site is predominantly atheist.
-
No, I don't. And I'll ask again, how are the results relevant?
-
I already told you.
-
No you haven't. I'll explicitly ask you: Do you believe that results of the poll help justify what you believe?
-
No, I do not need justification from such a source. I already know the answer.
-
[quote]Also, the poll speaks for itself anyway.[/quote]THEN WHAT DID THIS MEAN AND WHY DID YOU POST THIS.
-
Because the poll goes against your opinion. Most of the people in this thread didn't agree with you.
-
And, again, why does that even matter?
-
[quote]What is that supposed to mean?[/quote] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
-
I know, I just wanted him to admit it himself. He has tried to call people out on ad populums before (and failed).
-
That doesn't make them compatible. People can believe completely opposite things.
