Easy options.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: brisbane buddy ItsDarts, don't be intellectually lazy, or do I need to read it for you too. I have given you the source, I have given you the topic, now it is up to you, either you want to increase your knowledge or you wish to remain ignorant of it, the choice is up to you. Always has been and always will be, it is not up to me to convince you one way or the other.

WRONG!!!!!!!!! In these dabate boards, if you make a claim it is NOT up to the reader to look up your conjecture, Either support or retract. Learn how to debate. So, where is the support for the following claims?......

No need to send you any dinosaurs though, you would have plenty around you. There is more DNA and physical evidence which suggests that the dinosaur evolved in birds than there is to suggest that mankind evolved from a common ancestral ape. You know the funny thing is many biologist don't believe the palaeontolgists, some even go as far as to say they are crazy, it spoils their wiped out by an asteriod theory. Ah scientists don't ya just love them.

Its not my job to do the research on your claims, where ever did you get that Idea? Call it lazy if you like, but unless you support it, Its conjecture. The bolded parts need support or retraction. I'm not doing your homework.

Science is the way to knowledge ItsDarts. But stick to facts not science fiction. Open the mind to learn. I don't bash science, just the way the atheists abuse science in order to abuse theists with their sanctimonious crap and personal brand of religious dogma.

SOme examples would be nice.....

I believe myself so much ItsDarts because I have already read and understood what you appear to be intellectually lazy to do.

Is that so?

If you hadn't of been so lazy, we wouldn't be having this discussion for you would be saying I read and understood that too.

read WHAT???? See??? What/where/who am I reading??? This is whats called support for your propositions and claims.

Palaeontology really does go to great depths to explain it all. It is of course what they do and their field of expertise within the ranks of science.

Explains all of what? Certainly you aren't suggesting that Palaeontology explains all of evolution?

Here's some power of suggestion for you to chew on..... Your entire debating style is nothing but obfuscation, rhetoric and conjecture.

[TheDastardlyOne]

Quote by: brisbane buddy The dastardlyone, the point is chances are you will never get it it if you haven't gotten it as yet. Loser gets it, due to their association pattern. This is not a shot at your intelligence, it is just the way perception and association works. Palaeontology is established scientific fact. Using the reference given by the opening post, only intellectual laziness would stop a person from knowing it. Without knowing it Gemini did a Socrates to himself. To use the terminology of the Opening post, this glibly ignores the sheer volume of work and dedication that has gone into investigating these problems for at least a couple of hundred years. As for your analogy pertaining to 90% of those that study it (evolution) believe it is true I really think you are doing these people a diservice. I would conclude 100% or very close would believe it were true, else they wouldn't be studying it. It is akin to saying 100% of people who study physics believe in physics. You are acting in faith when you say you accept what they say, but you are also denying all the good quality scientists who don't support this point of view or hold a different theory or hypothesis of a similar or different nature. One who doesn't accept evolution generally acts exactly the same way as those that do accept evolution. All it says is people are human. No difference between people except what they believe and have faith in. Cheers.

You are not understanding the reason why he is calling them lazy.

For these reasons and others, I accuse all theists of mental laziness, because unless they can demonstrate serious objections, based on study, rather than religious prejudice, they are making fools of themselves.

It is not because they do not know, it is because they act like they can counter a theory which has a lot of backing with nothing.

Palentology has sheer volumes of work, that I have no clue of, however I would never debate it in my life. If I wanted to debate and proclaim knowledge without seeking knowledge I would be lazy.


I have made the claim argument before of the difference between people who claim to know and those who don't, however it appears you have ignored my post entirely, and just claimed once again, that I don't get it and restated your theory.

Please learn to make proper arguments attacking reasoning and creating your own.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: TheDastardlyOne I have made the claim argument before of the difference between people who claim to know and those who don't, however it appears you have ignored my post entirely, and just claimed once again, that I don't get it and restated your theory. Please learn to make proper arguments attacking reasoning and creating your own.

This is more evidence for my claim above, that BB's posts are nothing but obfuscation, rhetoric and conjecture. See BB, this is how you support arguments in debate. Not by making claims and expecting others to do the homework to see if your claims have validity. If your current style of debate continues, I will be forced to put your posts on ignore.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: brisbane buddy Open the mind to learn. I don't bash science, just the way the atheists abuse science in order to abuse theists with their sanctimonious crap and personal brand of religious dogma.

Since you are so fond of quoting chapter and verse, brisbane, - I've found a couple that you might like to ponder...

Proverbs: 26:4

Proverbs: 26:5

If you disagree, blame the bible, not me.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Since you are so fond of quoting chapter and verse, brisbane, - I've found a couple that you might like to ponder... Proverbs: 26:4 Proverbs: 26:5 If you disagree, blame the bible, not me.

On the contrary Gemini, I agree, it is what I keep telling the Atheists. The atheist is like the fool that they see. Albeit I like the version from older cultures better, "What you see in others, is only in yourself."

Cheers.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: TheDastardlyOne You are not understanding the reason why he is calling them lazy. For these reasons and others, I accuse all theists of mental laziness, because unless they can demonstrate serious objections, based on study, rather than religious prejudice, they are making fools of themselves. It is not because they do not know, it is because they act like they can counter a theory which has a lot of backing with nothing. Palentology has sheer volumes of work, that I have no clue of, however I would never debate it in my life. If I wanted to debate and proclaim knowledge without seeking knowledge I would be lazy. I have made the claim argument before of the difference between people who claim to know and those who don't, however it appears you have ignored my post entirely, and just claimed once again, that I don't get it and restated your theory. Please learn to make proper arguments attacking reasoning and creating your own.

People debate evolution without knowledge of Palaeontolgy. If they don't know it they can't add it to their intelligence and do not carry a full knowledge of the subject to which they are debating. If they don't have an in-depth knowledge of the subject they are debating they shouldn't be debating and know when to shut up and listen or do a bit of intelligent learning themselves. Else forever remain ignorant of knowledge and science.

No I took your words, about people who claim to know and those that don't and those that don't but think they do. It is the reason we are discussing Palaeontology now and why it was raised in the first instant. Some people are mentally lazy and intellectually dishonest.

And I do understand why he was calling people intellectually lazy. Albeit I can't post the truth because it would be considered a personal insult, so the next best thing was to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that theists are not the only people who are so called intellectually lazy. And this thread lays proof to it, so does the lack of knowledge applied to it.

It is not because they do not know, it is because they act like they can counter a theory which has a lot of backing with nothing

Do you mean like the backing of nothing with the replies to my Palaeontology question after evolution was raised as an issue in the Opening Post? I think I see the association you are trying to make. Some atheists proved it conclusively, didn't they?

If Palaeontlogy isn't a proper arguement for evolution I wll swim to China and back. Only intellectual laziness, stopped people from knowing the answer. My point conclusively proven.

Do you mean by proper arguments, arguments that make atheists look intelligent rather than inane? Oh I would say my agrument attacked the reasoning of the thread, and proved the point I was making conclusively, that all people are just the same. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones (many do of course).

Cheers.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: ItsDarts WRONG!!!!!!!!! In these dabate boards, if you make a claim it is NOT up to the reader to look up your conjecture, Either support or retract. Learn how to debate. So, where is the support for the following claims?...... Its not my job to do the research on your claims, where ever did you get that Idea? Call it lazy if you like, but unless you support it, Its conjecture. The bolded parts need support or retraction. I'm not doing your homework. SOme examples would be nice..... Is that so? read WHAT???? See??? What/where/who am I reading??? This is whats called support for your propositions and claims. Explains all of what? Certainly you aren't suggesting that Palaeontology explains all of evolution? Here's some power of suggestion for you to chew on..... Your entire debating style is nothing but obfuscation, rhetoric and conjecture.

LOL ItsDarts, WRONG!!!!!!!!

All I need to supply in any credible debate is the source from which it came. Credible debaters would aleady have this knowledge anyway and if they didn't they would rush into their research and get it so they would be better prepared next time.

The secret of debating is to know more than your opponent. You know when you have won because they start questioning you trying to find an opening or attacking your post for you have struck a nerve in their association. So then you just run them around is circles for a while, you can lead some on a merry dance like a dog chasing their own tail, then in for the kill.

I couldn't have proven intellectual laziness without you ItsDarts, thanks for your input.

Cheers.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: brisbane buddy LOL ItsDarts, WRONG!!!!!!!! All I need to supply in any credible debate is the source from which it came.

Which you haven't done. Game over.

Credible debaters would aleady have this knowledge anyway and if they didn't they would rush into their research and get it so they would be better prepared next time.

this is a laugh, "credible debater"? What is that? To me, its one who sources their claims, which you have not done. To me, its one actually makes a rebuttal, which you have not done. To me its one who doesn't obfuscate, which most of your posts do.

I couldn't have proven intellectual laziness without you ItsDarts, thanks for your input. Cheers.

the only thing you've proven is that I won't do the homework you as a" Credible Debater" should have provided. The only thing you've proven is that your debates are full of obfuscation and conjecture and no one really takes you seriously.

Look, here at post 55 you said the following.....

No need to send you any dinosaurs though, you would have plenty around you. There is more DNA and physical evidence which suggests that the dinosaur evolved in birds than there is to suggest that mankind evolved from a common ancestral ape.You know the funny thing is many biologist don't believe the palaeontolgists, some even go as far as to say they are crazy, it spoils their wiped out by an asteriod theory. Ah scientists don't ya just love them.

At post 57, I said....

Where is the support for ANYTHING you've said here? Or is this where we are suppose to accept your "power of suggestions"? Without any support on your part, we can write this off as mere conjecture.

At post 59, you said.....

ItsDarts, don't be intellectually lazy, or do I need to read it for you too. I have given you the source, I have given you the topic, now it is up to you, either you want to increase your knowledge or you wish to remain ignorant of it, the choice is up to you.

Now, in every post since we started talking, not once have you sourced your claims made in post 55. Do you know what sourcing means? It means provide a link that backs up your claims. You have not done this. I'm not serching the net for YOUR claims, thats your job, as a "credible debater". You lose! Consider yourself on ignore.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: ItsDarts Which you haven't done. Game over. this is a laugh, "credible debater"? What is that? To me, its one who sources their claims, which you have not done. To me, its one actually makes a rebuttal, which you have not done. To me its one who doesn't obfuscate, which most of your posts do. the only thing you've proven is that I won't do the homework you as a" Credible Debater" should have provided. The only thing you've proven is that your debates are full of obfuscation and conjecture and no one really takes you seriously. Look, here at post 55 you said the following..... At post 57, I said.... At post 59, you said..... Now, in every post since we started talking, not once have you sourced your claims made in post 55. Do you know what sourcing means? It means provide a link that backs up your claims. You have not done this. I'm not serching the net for YOUR claims, thats your job, as a "credible debater". You lose! Consider yourself on ignore.

LOL ItsDarts I have one word for you, Palaeontology.

Thanks for your help in proving me right again.

Cheers.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: brisbane buddy LOL ItsDarts I have one word for you, Palaeontology. Thanks for your help in proving me right again. Cheers.

Please don't hijack the debate brisbane, you have tried to lead us on a merry dance which is miles removed from the gist of my opening post.

If I'd wanted to debate palaeontology I would have mentioned it, so I'm getting concerned at the way this is going. I would have thought there was plenty of debatable material in my OP, none of which you have even tried to address in a serious way. First it was some whimsy about dinosaurs - totally irrelevant, IMO, and now these tirades about god-knows-what. It is very distracting, and it only serves to confuse the original argument when you keep hurling out accusations of laziness hither and thither.

I think you have established by now how incredibly well-read you are compared to the rest of us, so don't go belabouring the point. Having vast knowledge is one thing, but how you use it in debate is another matter - it simply won't do to merely bamboozle us with every fact ever known to man. We need some focus if we are to get anywhere.

With respect (and with as little irritation as I can manage) - Brian.

[TheDastardlyOne]

Quote by: brisbane buddy People debate evolution without knowledge of Palaeontolgy. If they don't know it they can't add it to their intelligence and do not carry a full knowledge of the subject to which they are debating. If they don't have an in-depth knowledge of the subject they are debating they shouldn't be debating and know when to shut up and listen or do a bit of intelligent learning themselves. Else forever remain ignorant of knowledge and science. No I took your words, about people who claim to know and those that don't and those that don't but think they do. It is the reason we are discussing Palaeontology now and why it was raised in the first instant. Some people are mentally lazy and intellectually dishonest. And I do understand why he was calling people intellectually lazy. Albeit I can't post the truth because it would be considered a personal insult, so the next best thing was to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that theists are not the only people who are so called intellectually lazy. And this thread lays proof to it, so does the lack of knowledge applied to it. Do you mean like the backing of nothing with the replies to my Palaeontology question after evolution was raised as an issue in the Opening Post? I think I see the association you are trying to make. Some atheists proved it conclusively, didn't they? If Palaeontlogy isn't a proper arguement for evolution I wll swim to China and back. Only intellectual laziness, stopped people from knowing the answer. My point conclusively proven. Do you mean by proper arguments, arguments that make atheists look intelligent rather than inane? Oh I would say my agrument attacked the reasoning of the thread, and proved the point I was making conclusively, that all people are just the same. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones (many do of course). Cheers.

I think we are getting closer here, but there is one statement we are not together grasping, and it is the foundation of my argument.

Intellectual laziness, as I refrencced from the OP with a quote before, is being defined as those who make claims against something that is supported by all of science, with nothing.

You see I don't know the whole of evolution and I don't have to. I don't have to learn everything, but I sure as hell can't go against a field of people who study this for a living saying they are wrong with nothing to back up what I say. That is the laziness that is being described. Please debate that.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Please don't hijack the debate brisbane, you have tried to lead us on a merry dance which is miles removed from the gist of my opening post. If I'd wanted to debate palaeontology I would have mentioned it, so I'm getting concerned at the way this is going. I would have thought there was plenty of debatable material in my OP, none of which you have even tried to address in a serious way. First it was some whimsy about dinosaurs - totally irrelevant, IMO, and now these tirades about god-knows-what. It is very distracting, and it only serves to confuse the original argument when you keep hurling out accusations of laziness hither and thither. I think you have established by now how incredibly well-read you are compared to the rest of us, so don't go belabouring the point. Having vast knowledge is one thing, but how you use it in debate is another matter - it simply won't do to merely bamboozle us with every fact ever known to man. We need some focus if we are to get anywhere. With respect (and with as little irritation as I can manage) - Brian.

You are entitled to your perception of association Gemini, but I have stuck with the thread. I have proven your point pertaining to Intellectual Laziness. Albeit I used Atheists to prove it correct.

So I agree with your Opening Post Gemini, some people are sure intellectually lazy, and as this thread has shown and proven, atheists are right up there with them.

Cheers.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: TheDastardlyOne I think we are getting closer here, but there is one statement we are not together grasping, and it is the foundation of my argument. Intellectual laziness, as I refrencced from the OP with a quote before, is being defined as those who make claims against something that is supported by all of science, with nothing. You see I don't know the whole of evolution and I don't have to. I don't have to learn everything, but I sure as hell can't go against a field of people who study this for a living saying they are wrong with nothing to back up what I say. That is the laziness that is being described. Please debate that.

Now you see TheDastardlyOne, this is the point you are not grasping, much of science actually supports what you claim is supported by nothing. Albeit to see this, you have to remove the subjectiveness applied by atheist logic. So you see it does align with the definition of the Opening Post. We are talking about the same intellectual laziness as defined in the OP. Increased acceptance of knowledge is the only way to fix the suggested intellectual laziness which in effect is what the Opening Post is saying, living in denial of it doesn't solve anything.

In essence the Opening Post did a Socrates to itself and made it guilty by the way of its own association. From that point on I just used history to prove the point again.

My professional knowledge and ethics tells me there is no such thing as intellectual laziness and it is a ridiculous analogy and claim to make, and can't be supported by scientific evidence. In fact scientific evidence concludes no knowledge is lazy. Albeit that goes against the definitions of the Opening Post which wants to use unscientific data as a substantiating point. This of course makes the whole opening post in denial of science and by definition of the opening post evidence in itself to conclude the deemed statement, intelliectual laziness, albeit as it pertains to atheist and not to theist. This thereby becomes a counter arguement to the debate. I am not on the for side, it is totally wrong and denies and defies scientific knowledge and data. My arguement is it is not a theist thing, but a human thing, which includes atheists and I have fully supported my argument and in doing so proven my point.

Cheers.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: brisbane buddy You know the funny thing is many biologist don't believe the palaeontolgists, some even go as far as to say they are crazy, it spoils their wiped out by an asteriod theory. Ah scientists don't ya just love them.

Who are these scientists you presume to speak for? Can you name even one?

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: loser Well, they don't. Actually, it's atheism that does so.

What "established scientific knowledge and facts" does atheism deny? I am an atheist. The only thing my atheism denies is the existence of a mythical magician in the sky. Which is just about as far from "established scientific knowledge" as it is possible to get.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: brisbane buddy You are entitled to your perception of association Gemini...

What the hell kind of pseudo-scientific claptrap is "perception of association"? Other than a little change form the pseudo-metaphysical claptrap, that is. As others have noted, your posts - never very enlightening - have increasingly descended into obfuscation. I'm with Gemini on this one. Such blather does not qualify as debate.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: Electric Hermit What the hell kind of pseudo-scientific claptrap is "perception of association"? Other than a little change form the pseudo-metaphysical claptrap, that is. As others have noted, your posts - never very enlightening - have increasingly descended into obfuscation. I'm with Gemini on this one. Such blather does not qualify as debate.

Oh sorry Electric perception and association are scientific terms, you wouldn't understand them so they will always be claptrap to you. There are scientific explanations for this.


Cheers.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: brisbane buddy Oh sorry Electric perception and association are scientific terms, you wouldn't understand them so they will always be claptrap to you. There are scientific explanations for this. Cheers.

Empty rhetoric. You lay claim to "scientific explanations" but never get any further than the claim.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: brisbane buddy So I agree with your Opening Post Gemini, some people are sure intellectually lazy, and as this thread has shown and proven, atheists are right up there with them..

Despite our very different styles of debating, Brisbane, for you to say you agree with my opening assertion about theists tending to be mentally complacent etc. is way off the mark. You certainly managed to side-step the allegation by turning it on its head, and far from proving that atheists are the lazy ones, as you insist we are, all I can see is that you have gone around the issue in wider and wider circles that lead nowhere conclusive, just as you always do.

Just to recap, then, I repeat my conviction that an individual given to sustained and reasoned thought tends to end up an atheist... Not because there is necessarily proof that gods are mythical creatures, (as Dawkins says - to maintain that would be foolish) but because the evidence fails to stack up, (except, perhaps, on a subjective, emotional level, if the believer is determined enough to be convinced).

In other words, atheists are more guided by rational analysis than are the faith-heads - FACT - !!

If you feel like having another go at disproving this, (without fudging the issue - brisbane-style) do me a favour and leave those sodding dinosaurs and palaeontology out of it this time?

ps. It's not the amount of knowledge we claim to have that is relevant here, it's the way we use our store of knowledge - how we draw on the understanding that comes from what we have learnt. You confuse having an accumulated body of absorbed facts with wisdom, with intelligent discrimination.

Not only does that lead to superficiality and confusion, but it seriously lacks the focus we need to bring to a debate. If only you could see this, brisbane... we might avoid the slanging matches and the rude personal invective.

[TheDastardlyOne]

Quote by: brisbane buddy Now you see TheDastardlyOne, this is the point you are not grasping, much of science actually supports what you claim is supported by nothing. Albeit to see this, you have to remove the subjectiveness applied by atheist logic. So you see it does align with the definition of the Opening Post. We are talking about the same intellectual laziness as defined in the OP. Increased acceptance of knowledge is the only way to fix the suggested intellectual laziness which in effect is what the Opening Post is saying, living in denial of it doesn't solve anything. In essence the Opening Post did a Socrates to itself and made it guilty by the way of its own association. From that point on I just used history to prove the point again. My professional knowledge and ethics tells me there is no such thing as intellectual laziness and it is a ridiculous analogy and claim to make, and can't be supported by scientific evidence. In fact scientific evidence concludes no knowledge is lazy. Albeit that goes against the definitions of the Opening Post which wants to use unscientific data as a substantiating point. This of course makes the whole opening post in denial of science and by definition of the opening post evidence in itself to conclude the deemed statement, intelliectual laziness, albeit as it pertains to atheist and not to theist. This thereby becomes a counter arguement to the debate. I am not on the for side, it is totally wrong and denies and defies scientific knowledge and data. My arguement is it is not a theist thing, but a human thing, which includes atheists and I have fully supported my argument and in doing so proven my point. Cheers.

I think our hang up might be on the phrase intelletual laziness. I do not like it nor think it is adequate. I would not like to discuss the ohrase but the definition used for it. The only argument you have made is that science claims it has no support for its theories. That is a valid counter-claim to my argument however I feel as though it will need to be proven before we go any further.