The Illogic of Nicool003

  • Thread starter LogicalAtheist
  • Start date

LogicalAtheist

Illogic At Work

Because my introductoary post was trashed with poor statements, I
wanted to bring it to a new post, where people here can discuss it.

This is not a personal attack. When one makes strange anti-science claims, one will recieve a massive argument.

LA - "Evolution is a system of Evolutionary Agents, and the widely accepted agents (about 3 to 5 of them) are widely accepted BECAUSE they've been seen in all ecosystems on this planet. This is evident even in my introductory Biology book. I have performed many labs where I had to show, from scratch, the entirity of a given agent."

N - "Evolution has NOT been proven true yet and if these scientists couldn't prove it right im certain you cant without bending information to try to suit your purposes."

LA - "So, what biology majors are doing in every lab in every university in the country, and the backbone of biology, from which all information since proven correct in biology lies on, is all incorrect?Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let's look at N's wonderful evidence.

N - "There isn't even enough evidence that humans evolved has several others here have agreed that there simply isn't enough evidence. "

LA - Babbling onward, N says something about humans evolving, hasn't happened? Also he says something about the Bible is just as equal a scientific source of knowledge. Again, I recieve no evidence for such a strange claim.

N - "Ok if you INSIST there is proof that evolution happened where as you still havent given any real proof say it did happen. Did a lifeform just pop up outta nowhere and begin to evolve? No if intelligent life came from evolution it was by gods will and the life he created."

LA - N cannot pick a single evolutionary agent for me to quickly explain. In my biology intro course, I had to go into a given REAL ecosystem, and identify the agents at work. They're quite simple, and they were indeed there. Avoidance of providing evidence usually means there is none to provide.

LA - Furthermore, he makes the grave error of "believeing" (no he doesn't put a thought process into it at all) that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life on Earth. Obviously he didn't read my recent column. My column alone would have trippled his knowledge on the subject.

So, provide your evidence. No ad hominems. Evidence to disprove such fundamental claims
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BoulderHead

So, what say you people?
I'd say this topic will likely be locked or deleted as personal attacks are not welcome at PF...
 

LogicalAtheist

Here's the first response:

"How about the classic case of a fanatical atheist who can't accept that without religion science is nothing and that religion is NOT MYTHOLOGY."

Hmm, So. Let's examine this.

Without religion science is nothing.

Religion is NOT mythology? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet not a single person on the planet has yet to show that religious mythology is anything other than mythology.

I'm not sure why you're here. You hide behind falsities, and make claims you have no proof for, while alot of people here pass on valuable knowledge. I am positive there are sites where mythopaths can talk and noone will require evidence for strange claims? try a google search.

Otherwise, it's your burden to provide evidence for all these outrageous claims you're making. Yet you cannot do such.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LogicalAtheist

This isn't a personal attack.

It's a forum so that we here can discuss these outrageous claims by Nicool003. I'm not attacking the person, I'm attacking the persons allegations and assertions. Make that DEAD clear.

Yet, how can one not mention the person saying such things. One cannot attack an arguement without attacking the person, for it's the person who IS the arguement if it's coming from a direct source and not some massive population.
 

Nicool003

This isn't a personal attack.

It's a forum so that we here can discuss these outrageous claims by Nicool003. I'm not attacking the person, I'm attacking the persons allegations and assertions. Make that DEAD clear.

You are a fanatic atheist. LISTEN TO YOURSELF! "these outrageous "claims" they are my beliefs and not only that but there is as much evidence pointing that they are true as there is that your OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS are! And this is a personal attack if only by its title but you just proved its a personal attack by saying


I'm attacking the persons allegations and assertions



that is still a personal attack howwever you look at it except perhaps in your view
 

LogicalAtheist

Yes, you're beliefs. You're missing the point here.

be·lief (b-lf)
n.
Mental acceptance of a claim as true without evidence.

There's the definition. You're beliefs have no evidence. You can think them all you want. But once you decide to DARE to say that your claims are true, and therefore the TRUTH is not the TRUTH, is when you will have your claims attacked, and ripped apart my logic and science. You have yet to provide any evidence, you're merely spamming with personal attacks. Dare you attempt to debate this?

truth (trth)
n.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

There we have it.

If you don't attempt to refute this with any sort of evidence, you're not going to be taken seriously here.

I am keeping this saved. It's a prime example I'm going to use of the mental processes of someone infested by mythological falsities. If you decide to refute it with some evidence, perhaps you will break your own mold. I challenge you to show this evidence, and invite other science minds to speak up.

If you're going to make outrageous claims, be prepared to be attacked in debate. If you can't take it, then don't dare say something in a SCIENCE forum that is ANTI-SCIENCE.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BoulderHead

This isn't a personal attack...

Until you edited your original it certainly looked to be one.

I'm attacking the persons allegations and assertions
Nicool003,
You're adding wood to the fire. Maybe you ought to edit too :smile:
 

LogicalAtheist

ADMIN: If you'd like, change the name of the topic to something mentioning acts of anti-science illogic. This isn't an attack on the person Nicool003, this an attempt to strike debate from this outrageous person. It will surely fail as it always does. It's a good example however. How about "Illogic at Work"

Boulder - I edited it because of your comment. One cannot expect to attack the truth of science with the falsities of religious mythology and not be attacked. When one provides an even "decent" argument, one will recieve from me a non ad hominem arguement. However, when one makes claims I would call anti-humanitrian, and chooses to replace any attempt at even the worse evidence with attacks on science and logical thinking, one will not get me to rise to the occasion and take the effort to speak intelligently.

I certainly don't explain plate tectonics to my dog. And yet I will bark at it.

PS: It's come to my attention that one can block users here. I had no idea. If this turns out like it is surely to turn out, I'll have begun using it. I come here to learn from intelligent science minds. Preferably atheists, one cannot choose logically otherwise. I'll soon be using it to get only what I want out of this place.

I'm being nice and giving you further chances Nicool003.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nicool003

You may be good in science but I think your lack of religion has hardened you moraly because you dont seem to understand.


For attacking my beliefs you attack part of me that I hold close and that is important to me that is in my heart and soul and if you had a heart you would realize that attacking my beliefs is, indeed attacking me.
 

LogicalAtheist

Originally posted by Nicool003
You may be good in science but I think your lack of religion has hardened you moraly because you dont seem to understand.


For attacking my beliefs you attack part of me that I hold close and that is important to me that is in my heart and soul and if you had a heart you would realize that attacking my beliefs is, indeed attacking me.

I am attacking your beliefs because you chose to impose them INTO reality. You broke rule 2.

Weather or not you hold something close to you is irrelevant. If you held the belief that a spirit told you to kill my (non-existant) wife, it wouldn't make me think twice about doing you know what.

I have a "heart" in your terms.

The fact that you feel attacking your "beliefs" attacks you, goes to support my claim that religious mythopaths use emotion to drive their belief.

You are emotionally attached to believing that certain claims are true. And you cannot apparently handle when they are shown to be disproven.

Being an atheist, and a "logical" one so I call myself, I have a great deal of care for humanity. Thus, it bothers ME EMOTIONALLY, that children are influenced such that when they grow up and face reality and truth, they have such troubles as this, because they were taught incorrect information as a child, and have a head filled with mythology and just plain falsities. They will thus have a lower quality of life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nicool003

No I believe it is you that broke rule 2. Look in your topic in the general discussion forum
 

LogicalAtheist

Despite me feeling sorry for the general concept of such occurences I mentioned above, that doesn't change their ability to choose to learn from those more knowledgable and intelligent on truths. And since you choose not to take advice, I don't think you've found the best forum.

There are plenty of religious mythology sites, probably teaming with mythopaths. Here is a list:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=religious+forums

Check those out, they won't threaten falsities with truth.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Boxers, back to your corners!

Nicool,

You can't go around these forums discrediting evolution without being responded to. It is a well established science, and this is a science forum. If you want to attack it, you must do it with logic and evidence, or not at all.

Logical Atheist,

This is not the way to teach people things. Not at all! I believe that Nicool is 16 or 17 years old. I, for one, did not reject Christianity for atheism until I was about 24 (physics grad school beat some sense into me!) Everyone comes to grips with things in their own time. You cannot drag them kicking and screaming into it, but that is effectively what you are doing by calling Nicool out by name in the title of the thread.
 

Kerrie

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
818
14
This thread is considered a personal attack against a member and clearly violates PF's guidelines of respect for other members. Ideas and opinions may be argued, but insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated.
 

LogicalAtheist

Tom - the topic heading was inappropriate. I asked above for it to be changed, if you can do it please do. Originally Nicool003's posts were filled with type-yelling and nothing of substance.

My attempt is NEVER to drag people into atheism. Never will I ever attempt to "convert" a person to atheism. I may on a large level, educate people about it, but never towards a single person. If this is what shows I did not represent myself well.

My attempt was simply to debate this non-existant evidence. However, it's done now as I can see this will not be taking place. Feel free to also lock this. It serves no purpose anymore!

Kerrie - As you can see TOM addressed this. It's not a personal attack, perhaps if you hold similiar emotions as Nicool003 it appears as such. Regardless, it is a debate against claims. I see no reason to think it's an attack.
 

Nicool003

You can't go around these forums discrediting evolution without being responded to. It is a well established science, and this is a science forum. If you want to attack it, you must do it with logic and evidence, or not at all.


:frown:


You dont understand Tom, or else you are not thinking right.


This all started with him saying that his "standards" for a girl to go out with would be she cant be religous. I and a few others said that was too high and I aadded that over 90% of the population is religous. Then he just went off on his all out rampage against religion. Me going around discrediting ones beliefs suddenly? I thought you knew me better tom
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,475
20
Originally posted by Nicool003
This all started with him saying that his "standards" for a girl to go out with would be she cant be religous. I and a few others said that was too high and I aadded that over 90% of the population is religous.
I did not see that thread; I am only talking about the comments posted in the first post of this thread. If you were misquoted or quoted out of context, then I am sorry.
 

LogicalAtheist

Tom does know better. It's you who doesn't. You are now on my ignore list.
 

schwarzchildradius

It certainly seems un-necessarily mean to me.
 

ahrkron

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
735
1
LogicalAtheist,

Your approach to debate is not helping your intent. I'm an atheist as well, and share some of your opinions, but I also think that such a strongly confrontational attitude is extremely inefficient as a way of conveying information.

Most people will react to how you say things instead of considering what you have to say.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top