It doesn’t shock me that people like EndGameOmega and Kyle (whom I think thou cite primarily when referring to the “atheists” because I think they both are) become annoyed when rhetorical arguments revolve around linguistic hacks, shifting jargon, and blatantly ignoring the epistemology of what’s being argued. Since I’m a poor philosopher, but I am a linguist, I figured that I’d give Chuck access to the basic precepts of what he was arguing so we could have a common language (via the proxy Wikipedia site).

I decided to let others, or as thou called them the atheists, have the floor when the conversation wandered heavily into meta arguments.

A second problem is that forum discussions like this tend to lack emotional appeal of speech—what would be a humorous jibe can seem like a personal attack, and irritable wording directed at behavior feels like direct insults. The discussion certainly became extremely informal and a bit heated, but no where did it become the outright flame war that thou insinuate was happening.

Furthermore, don’t think that I missed the rhetorical language tricks in thy post either. Nobody discussing science is “preaching their beliefs.” Using language such as this should and will evoke a reaction of narrowed eyes as it did in EndGameOmega’s reply.

Chuck did an excellent job of holding his own, trying to manage the epistemological discourse; but all that rather evanesced away in the end when he dropped discussing the facts in lieu of talking about religiosity and faith.

If you want to throw your weight behind Chuck feel free, you simply show to all of us and any who know science that you don’t know anything about it ether. Chuck was wrong, and continues to be wrong. He refuses to acknowledge any of the arguments made against him as valid, and hand waves them away. He’s brain washed because he can’t even use logic or reason to argue his case, nor can he even see it.

The fact is that Chuck came into our forum, and spewed irritated crap about changing radioactive decay rates, to which anyone who knows about atomic and particle physics will agree is utter bullshit. We called him on it, so then he reiterates it again, and adds other nonsense to the mix. He’s claiming that all of science is wrong, then gives no good reason for it. He’s wrong, and we called him on it, if nether he nor you can accepts that then you shouldn’t try to argue with people who know this stuff.

…came an spewed nonsense…
…not only wrong but arrogant as well…
…supports quacks and crack pot ideas…
…completely ignorant and brain washed…

I say … sigh …
I think you kinda just proved my point …

It’s clear to me that ether you’ve not read his post or have simply agreed with them as they fit your physiological world view. The points and claims he has made are out right ignorant of science and he keeps making them. You can support him all you want Vocab, that wont change the fact that he’s wrong, and arrogant. We aren’t preaching to him, where trying to explain why his knowledge of science is nonexistent. Seriously you aren’t helping him, your self, or us.

I just wanted to encourage you. As a fellow theist on here, I say “Keep it up”! These guys were not all that nice to you and you pretty much kept your cool – good job, bro.

And to all my atheist friends both in this forum and on the streets, please work on your people skills. You should “evolve” better, less insulting tactics to preach your beliefs. Otherwise, you start sounding as much of an ultra-fundamentalist as some of our buddies out there on Mill Ave. … and Lord knows, no one wants that!

smile =)
vocab

You lost this argument as soon as you appealed to the supernatural, you admitted you don’t have evidence, and you don’t have science. I have no doubt you’ll try and argue something else absurd, and that your right, but I find it funny that the very stuff you cling to and preach is what lead me and most of my class away from Christianity.

As Nietzsche said, “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”