Agnosticism

[goingmeta]

<p>

Hypothetical: A man thinks there’s treasure hidden beneath his porch while his neighbors scoff at the idea. He decides to prove them wrong and dig under his porch.
Question: Is he trying to prove the treasure exists or doesn’t exist?
The inclusion of a negative redefines the intention of the treasure hunter and his perception of reality.

Let’s create two statements:</p>

<p>“X believes it’s impossible to prove the chest.”
“X believes it’s impossible to prove the chest doesn’t exist.”</p>

<p>When you initially stated that it added “tilt” or bias to your original claim, I responded by saying that anyone with any background knowledge would interpret these two claims the same. Why? Because the first statement is nonsense (I know you already know). If it was impossible to positively prove the existence of god, then there really wouldn’t be a debate over it, now would there? With appropriate context and background knowledge, the reader could very easily come to the conclusion that the first statement doesn’t actually mean what it says. It actually means what the second statement says. The reader can reason as follows: “I understand there is a legitimate dispute over this matter and statement 1 resembles statement 2 but statement 1 cannot be true, therefore if I had to interpret this statement, I would assume it meant statement 2.” </p>

<p>In a similar way, your whole hypothetical would also be vacuous (if not for the sake of asking the question) if the first statement is true. Why would you purposely create a vacuous hypothetical situation? You wouldn’t, therefore the first statement cannot be true. </p>

<p>This is all very unfair you might say. If taken literally, then these two statements <em>do</em> mean different things. Yes, however most readers with any ounce of common sense are capable of eliminating choices. It’s also actually quite common for people to mean different things than what they explicitly write. Let’s take some of the things you’ve said in this thread as examples:</p>

<p>

You never correctly identified my “fallacious reasoning”.

Already addressed its ambiguity.

I did not address “agnostic theists” nor “agnostic atheists” in that quote. They are fundamentally different from pure agnostics.

When prior to my mention, you never actually made the distinction. So should we all just assume you meant “the popularized version of what it means to be agnostic” instead of “agnostic” in every instance of your usage?</p>

<p>

Argumentum Ad Hominem
Informal Structure of Ad Hominem
Person L says argument A.
Person L’s circumstance or character is not satisfactory.
Argument A is not a good argument.
In context:

1. I made my argument.
2. You deemed my ability to research my arguments inadequate.
3. You stated my argument was fallacious without any other justification aside from the preceding judgment.
   Our debate over ad hominem closely resembles this:
   <a href=“http://cectic.com/comics/069.png[/url]”>http://cectic.com/comics/069.png&lt;/a&gt;
   Although for our purposes, “believer” will be replaced by “goingmeta”. Your responses to my justification have simply been “No it’s not” without providing justification on your part.

Actually, I think I’ve told you numerous times what I believed to be your strawman fallacy (your flawed conception of what it means to be agnostic). In each time, you ended up just agreeing with me which is why I think this “debate” is at a moot point.</p>

<p>But thanks, I think my understanding of the ad hominem fallacy is good enough not to need reinforcement from random sites. I could probably argue that you’re attempting to poison the well at the moment seeing as how you’re ATTEMPTING to COMPARE me to a stubborn religious person. By doing that, you could POTENTIALLY be attempting to undermine my legitimacy. I COULD argue it in the same way you HAVE been arguing that I committed an ad hominem fallacy–but I won’t. Do you see how frivolous this side-discussion has been? Probably not.</p>

<p>

You acknowledged it yourself in post 15. That was fun. I didn’t even have to meticulously explain how you’re wrong this time.

Ok–bad choice of words on my part. I should have said, “you really don’t understand any of the nuance of the types of discussion where two people are trying to be precise with their language, do you?” I’m sure you prefer that, right?</p>

<p>A debate is where two parties address a single question and where they take turns rebutting each others’ claims, not where they bicker for hours on end over trivial reasons. Also: try starting a debate with “I’ve always seen [agnosticism] as some nonsense adaptation some atheists use to appeal to their religious compatriots.” You’ll get laughed out of the room. Some of it is probably my fault, but really, I have no reason to take you seriously when you begin your threads with such glaringly obnoxious statements. Oh, and I <em>really</em> could cite other reasons for why this isn’t a debate. </p>

<p>

While I have refined my definition of agnosticism over the course of this debate, it became clear by post #6, in which I differentiated between theists/atheists and those who label themselves solely as agnostics, that the “agnostic” I was referring to was the individual in post #16. My sole mistake has been in using the term “agnosticism” as I had generalized the agnostic population.

</p>

<p>Actually, I’m pretty sure I made that distinction before you.</p>

<p>goto: red</p>

<p>

I do enjoy winning.

Yes, I know. Discussions are all about who wins and not about any sort of necessity to clear up an issue or idea.</p>

[heampopy]

<p>

@goingmeta

With appropriate context and background knowledge, the reader could very easily come to the conclusion that the first statement doesn’t actually mean what it says.

Your defense is: “We shouldn’t have to mean what we say.” Clearly the throes of desperation have set in to your ability to form rational arguments.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

My assertion: it doesn’t alter the intent of the individual.

@goingmeta

If taken literally, then these two statements <em>do</em> mean different things.

Did you actually think I would have forgotten the conflicting statement you made merely 2 posts ago? It’s a shame you addressed the statement literally first.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

I’m stating the obvious, but you’re most likely going to try and pin this dispute on me instead of your own ambiguous language.

@goingmeta

It’s also actually quite common for people to mean different things than what they explicitly write.

I’m familiar with the concept of ambiguity. Do you recall post #11? It’s when you first began your tirade against ambiguous language.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Actually, I think I’ve told you numerous times what I believed to be your strawman fallacy (your flawed conception of what it means to be agnostic). In each time, you ended up just agreeing with me which is why I think this “debate” is at a moot point.

You never correctly identified any straw man argument, at least none of my own. If I have a flawed conception of what agnosticism means, refute the following defenses I have made:</p>

<p>Regarding agnosticism as a position on knowledge:

@heampopy

A purely agnostic stance to the question “Do you think there’s a god?” is nonsense. If someone poses a question of belief, the appropriate answer is a stated belief. Claiming agnosticism is not a real answer to the question. If someone answers that question with “I’m agnostic”, they are claiming to be completely devoid of belief in the same vein as someone saying “I don’t know”. You cannot answer a question of belief with a position on knowledge. Now you’ll respond: “Well that’s why there are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists!” Well if someone responds “I’m an agnostic theist”, I will appreciate the offered position on belief, but for the purpose of the question, I don’t care about the added “agnostic” as it is completely irrelevant. That being said, it depends on how the question is formed. My issue with those who claim to be solely agnostic is the use of the term as a cop-out to any religious question, regarding both belief and knowledge.

</p>

<p>Regarding the term “Agnostic” as it has entered into the popular lexicon:

@heampopy

It’s an individual who answers a question of belief with a position on knowledge, someone who either doesn’t understand what agnosticism means or simply doesn’t care. “Agnostic” has quickly become a term used by the non-religious who don’t take their lack of beliefs as far as atheists. Before you incorrectly accuse me of it, I’m not saying this represents all people claiming to be agnostic, but all it takes is one look on Facebook to see how many people put “Agnostic” under “Religious [Views]” to understand the scope of this term’s misuse.

</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

But thanks, I think my understanding of the ad hominem fallacy is good enough not to need reinforcement from random sites. I could probably argue that you’re attempting to poison the well at the moment seeing as how you’re ATTEMPTING to COMPARE me to a stubborn religious person. By doing that, you could POTENTIALLY be attempting to undermine my legitimacy. I COULD argue it in the same way you HAVE been arguing that I committed an ad hominem fallacy–but I won’t. Do you see how frivolous this side-discussion has been? Probably not.

No, clearly your understanding is still flawed considering you still fail to acknowledge the fact that you utilized one. I am undermining your legitimacy, but my justification isn’t simply “You’re an idiot” unless you consider proving you wrong equivalent. </p>

<p>Once again, as you’re clearly still incapable of understanding this simple concept, you used an ad hominem because your sole justification for how I used a fallacy was a personal attack. </p>

<p>Also, some solid use of caps lock. If you’re trying to bring to my attention that you are no longer misspelling words like “embarrassing”, you have succeeded. If not, I would like to know how I have apparently compared you to a “stubborn religious person”.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Ok–bad choice of words on my part. I should have said, “you really don’t understand any of the nuance of the types of discussion where two people are trying to be precise with their language, do you?” I’m sure you prefer that, right?

Yes, actually. I would prefer you use words correctly. This isn’t Fox News and I hope you’re not Sarah Palin.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

A debate is where two parties address a single question and where they take turns rebutting each others’ claims, not where they bicker for hours on end over trivial reasons. Also: try starting a debate with “I’ve always seen [agnosticism] as some nonsense adaptation some atheists use to appeal to their religious compatriots.” You’ll get laughed out of the room. Some of it is probably my fault, but really, I have no reason to take you seriously when you begin your threads with such glaringly obnoxious statements. Oh, and I <em>really</em> could cite other reasons for why this isn’t a debate.

1. We have been taking turns.
2. The question at hand is the appropriate use of the term “agnostic”.
3. If someone throws one or several red herrings into a debate, that doesn’t make it any less of a debate. For example: If John McCain started making false accusations (this is nothing against McCain, we all get senile) against Obama during the presidential debates and Obama had to spend half of his time defending such allegations, the fact remains that they’re in a debate.
4. The OP addressed an uncertainty and was not the inception of this debate. That honor lies with post #6.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

When prior to my mention, you never actually made the distinction. So should we all just assume you meant “the popularized version of what it means to be agnostic” instead of “agnostic” in every instance of your usage?

Translation: “Why would you expect me to assume you’re using the more common usage of a word?”</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Actually, I’m pretty sure I made that distinction before you.

Agreed. Unfortunately the matter being discussed is whether or not you corrected me. I had never claimed an impossibility in being simultaneously theist/atheist and agnostic, which makes the above quote a rather pointless statement. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Yes, I know. Discussions are all about who wins and not about any sort of necessity to clear up an issue or idea.

Oh, I’m plenty clear. Your apparent lack of awareness of this game of one-up would explain why you’re getting thrown around like a rag doll.</p>

[goingmeta]

<p>

@you

@me

When prior to my mention, you never actually made the distinction. So should we all just assume you meant “the popularized version of what it means to be agnostic” instead of “agnostic” in every instance of your usage?

Translation: “Why would you expect me to assume you’re using the more common usage of a word?”

Your defense is: “We shouldn’t have to mean what we say.” Clearly the throes of desperation have set in to your ability to form rational arguments.

</p>

<p>Your defense: I use words as they’re popularly understood and not as they’re actually defined and then blame others when they don’t understand what I mean.</p>

<p>The irony is killing me.</p>

<p>

Did you actually think I would have forgotten the conflicting statement you made merely 2 posts ago? It’s a shame you addressed the statement literally first.

1. The first statement was intended to come off as facetious to show you how easily I could “combat” your assertions (with counter-assertions).
2. I understand, if taken literally, it means different things. I also understand–if the reader had any background knowledge on the topic and a comprehension level beyond that of a 10 year old-- that it could also be interpreted in the same way. Do you? Is the reasoning so… unreasonable? HE-HE</p>

<p>

You never correctly identified any straw man argument, at least none of my own. If I have a flawed conception of what agnosticism means, refute the following defenses I have made:</p>

<p>Regarding agnosticism as a position on knowledge:

The following statements were generalized to include all agnostics, when in fact you were only referring to some popularized nonsense position of agnosticism. That is a straw man, regardless of whether you claim you knew after it was all said and done. After all, what else am I supposed to base my responses on if not your prior posts? </p>

<p>

@you

I’ve always seen [agnosticism] as some nonsense adaptation some atheists use to appeal to their religious compatriots.

</p>

<h2>

@you

Agnostics will straddle the theist/atheist fence halfway, yet when confronted with other supernatural beings, the range of possibility goes from 50% to 0%.

</h2>

<p>

@you

While I have refined my definition of agnosticism over the course of this debate,

Great. You should’ve shown you understood it from the beginning, then I wouldn’t have been baited into this discussion.</p>

<p>

No, clearly your understanding is still flawed considering you still fail to acknowledge the fact that you utilized one. I am undermining your legitimacy, but my justification isn’t simply “You’re an idiot” unless you consider proving you wrong equivalent.

Look above.</p>

<p>

Once again, as you’re clearly still incapable of understanding this simple concept, you used an ad hominem because your sole justification for how I used a fallacy was a personal attack.

Again, look above.</p>

<p>

Also, some solid use of caps lock. If you’re trying to bring to my attention that you are no longer misspelling words like “embarrassing”, you have succeeded. If not, I would like to know how I have apparently compared you to a “stubborn religious person”.

Making typos is sooper emberressing, man. Also: the caps lock is to show you that I can use weasel words to make erroneous claims as well. I didn’t link the invalidity of the argument to your intellectual inadequacy or commit an ad hominem as you claim; you’re pressing the issue because my statement is IMPLYING such a link where one doesn’t actually exist. (post 12)</p>

<p>

If not, I would like to know how I have apparently compared you to a “stubborn religious person”.

@you

<a href=“http://cectic.com/comics/069.png”>http://cectic.com/comics/069.png&lt;/a&gt;
Although for our purposes, “believer” will be replaced by “goingmeta”.

Let’s see: an image of a believer who doesn’t know the rules to an activity–or as my first impression of the image suggested, is insisting on not learning the rules (stubborn)-- who attempts to engage in said activity which requires knowing the rules. Could that possibly be your perception of the situation? How would I know unless you made any mention of the believer with regards to me? Oh, you did? Oh, we should replace “the believer” with “goingmeta”? Oh. </p>

<p>Yep, I don’t see any attempt at comparison or analogy either; comprehending stuff is too hard.</p>

<p>

1. We have been taking turns.
2. The question at hand is the appropriate use of the term “agnostic”.
3. If someone throws one or several red herrings into a debate, that doesn’t make it any less of a debate. For example: If John McCain started making false accusations (this is nothing against McCain, we all get senile) against Obama during the presidential debates and Obama had to spend half of his time defending such allegations, the fact remains that they’re in a debate.
4. The OP addressed an uncertainty and was not the inception of this debate. That honor lies with post #6.

1. We’re taking turns?! Well that settles it! This must be a debate!
2. Did you ignore the part where I said “not where they bicker for hours on end over trivial reasons”?</p>

<p>

Oh, I’m plenty clear. Your apparent lack of awareness of this game of one-up would explain why you’re getting thrown around like a rag doll.

YES! Trash talking is my favorite part of debating. This is a debate right? But we’re taking turns!</p>

<p>Oh and stop poisoning the well, man.</p>

[heampopy]

<p>

@goingmeta

Your defense: I use words as they’re popularly understood…

Yes. I do try my best to use words as people understand them. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

…not as they’re actually defined and then blame others when they don’t understand what I mean.

If it was wrong for me to apply the term “agnostic” as it is used colloquially, then I’d apologize. Unfortunately, I’d like to direct your attention to the argument posted by self-proclaimed “agnostic” Oneguy21:

@Oneguy21

That said, agnostics, like most people, dismiss the possibility of werewolves, leprechauns, fairies, and other fantasy characters, because these things are universally understood as products of folklore/myth.

Oneguy21 took the bait regarding the reconciliation question because it was clear to him how I was using the term “agnostic” at that point in the discussion.</p>

<p>It’s interesting that you are the only one who has posted in this thread that has failed to understand my intended usage of the term.</p>

<p>Reconcile your tirade against ambiguous language starting around post #11 with your recent defense of ambiguity. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

I understand, if taken literally, it means different things. I also understand–if the reader had any background knowledge on the topic and a comprehension level beyond that of a 10 year old-- that it could also be interpreted in the same way.

I’m glad you mentioned that because it happens to take the comprehension level of roughly a ten-year-old to think that quoting “It’s impossible to prove a deity” would constitute a complete thought. </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

The following statements were generalized to include all agnostics, when in fact you were only referring to some popularized nonsense position of agnosticism. That is a straw man, regardless of whether you claim you knew after it was all said and done. After all, what else am I supposed to base my responses on if not your prior posts?

Using the second quote you provided, refer back to Oneguy21.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Great. You should’ve shown you understood it from the beginning, then I wouldn’t have been baited into this discussion.

Starting at post #6, the inception of the debate, I did. You were baited because I disputed your dogmatic approach to the discussion. Sadly, you’re still being baited considering I have already clarified what my definitions of agnosticism are and you’re sitting here disputing whether or not adding a negative changes a sentence’s meaning.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Look above.

I did. I just assumed you were aware that by the time I got to this part of your post I would have already refuted your defense regarding straw man arguments (which you somehow consider to be of equal value against the accusation of ad hominem). By post #19 it was clear you were running out of ways to defend yourself from the allegation of using ad hominem. This is just circling the drain.</p>

<p>

@heampopy

I would like to know how I have apparently compared you to a “stubborn religious person”.

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t make accusations without justification so for the second time address the above quote.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Making typos is sooper emberressing, man.

It is actually pretty embarrassing seeing you fall apart. I find that when people start to resort to sarcasm, they’ve begun to run out of ways to logically defend themselves. For the sake of arguing, make as many typos as you want. You’ll gain nothing and look dumber in the process.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Let’s see: an image of a believer who doesn’t know the rules to an activity–or as my first impression of the image suggested, is insisting on not learning the rules (stubborn)-- who attempts to engage in said activity which requires knowing the rules. Could that possibly be your perception of the situation? How would I know unless you made any mention of the believer with regards to me? Oh, you did? Oh, we should replace “the believer” with “goingmeta”? Oh.</p>

<p>Yep, I don’t see any attempt at comparison or analogy either; comprehending stuff is too hard.

I wasn’t comparing you to the believer, but the rest of the script fit if I replaced him with you. For your comprehension, I’ll ask you to ignore what the original comic says and I’ll rewrite the comic to make my point:
Arguing with goingmeta about logical fallacies is like playing chess;
I carefully craft my case, watch for traps, set my own,
Maintaining a delicate interplay of threats and counter-threats.
And though I might have a strong material advantage…
I can’t win against someone who doesn’t understand the rules.
The point being made: Asserting “No it’s not” is not a valid argument.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

1. We’re taking turns?! Well that settles it! This must be a debate!
2. Did you ignore the part where I said “not where they bicker for hours on end over trivial reasons”?

1. I used your definition for your benefit. If you find it inadequate, supply a better definition and I’ll prove it using that one.
2. I didn’t. Number 3 on my list addressed that clearly. “False accusations” clearly stands for your false accusations of a straw man argument and your extensive disputation of your use of ad hominem.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Trash talking is my favorite part of debating.

1. You admit it’s a debate for the second time.
2. I’m only using what is given to me. If you’re going to take a holier-than-thou approach, you’d best be off not using trash talk and condescension. </p>

<p>That was easy.</p>

[goingmeta]

<p>

Oneguy21 took the bait regarding the reconciliation question because it was clear to him how I was using the term “agnostic” at that point in the discussion.</p>

<p>It’s interesting that you are the only one who has posted in this thread that has failed to understand my intended usage of the term.</p>

<p>Reconcile your tirade against ambiguous language starting around post #11 with your recent defense of ambiguity.

</p>

<p>I’ll let you in on a little secret: your claim about me being the only one failing to understand something doesn’t actually carry that much weight when you consider that there are only 4 other people who bothered responding. Not to mention, the majority doesn’t dictate the truth. Do I smell a fallacy?</p>

<p>

I’m glad you mentioned that because it happens to take the comprehension level of roughly a ten-year-old to think that quoting “It’s impossible to prove a deity” would constitute a complete thought.

Who said I thought that? I recognized it from the beginning but didn’t bother to bring it up because you would most likely cry “red herring” if I made a deal about such a trivial grammatical error. I also stated in my previous posts that I thought in both cases the implied noun is the deity’s existence. So even if it’s not explicitly stated, it’s implied. Or are you going to disagree with me over that?</p>

<p>Well done on addressing the actual content of that quote though. Well done.</p>

<p>

Using the second quote you provided, refer back to Oneguy21.

I’m amazed that after 20 or so posts of hassling me to tell you what I believed to be your straw man fallacy, you didn’t even bother directly addressing it once I finally made it clear to you what I thought it was. Instead, you just directed me to somebody else’s reply.</p>

<p>What happened broski?</p>

<p>

Starting at post #6, the inception of the debate, I did. You were baited because I disputed your dogmatic approach to the discussion. Sadly, you’re still being baited considering I have already clarified what my definitions of agnosticism are and you’re sitting here disputing whether or not adding a negative changes a sentence’s meaning.

I thought I agreed with you?</p>

<p>

@you

@me

@you

No, clearly your understanding is still flawed considering you still fail to acknowledge the fact that you utilized one. I am undermining your legitimacy, but my justification isn’t simply “You’re an idiot” unless you consider proving you wrong equivalent.

Look above.

</p>

<p>I did. I just assumed you were aware that by the time I got to this part of your post I would have already refuted your defense regarding straw man arguments (which you somehow consider to be of equal value against the accusation of ad hominem). By post #19 it was clear you were running out of ways to defend yourself from the allegation of using ad hominem. This is just circling the drain.

I would be aware that my defense would be refuted by the time you were some portion through my post? Why would I be aware of that? I’m supposed to preemptively guess what kind of reply you’re going to make? What are you even on about?</p>

<p>

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t make accusations without justification so for the second time address the above quote.

Um, I did. Do I have to put a quote around two quotes to make it clear that I’m addressing two things simultaneously? Or are you incapable of understanding sarcasm?</p>

<p>

It is actually pretty embarrassing seeing you fall apart. I find that when people start to resort to sarcasm, they’ve begun to run out of ways to logically defend themselves. For the sake of arguing, make as many typos as you want. You’ll gain nothing and look dumber in the process.

Lol. I’ll look dumber by making typos? I’m so sorry if you actually believe that.</p>

<p>

I find that when people start to resort to sarcasm, they’ve begun to run out of ways to logically defend themselves.

But you know, bringing up grammatical errors and calling others dumb if they make typos ISN’T indicative that an individual has run out of ways to logically defend himself. </p>

<p>Well done.</p>

<p>

I wasn’t comparing you to the believer, but the rest of the script fit if I replaced him with you.

Awesome. Re-assert what you think and then repeat the comic with some words which have been replaced. </p>

<p>

For your comprehension,

I’ll just take this as a tacit admission of you being incapable of understanding sarcasm.</p>

<p>

1. You admit it’s a debate for the second time.

LOL</p>

<p>[insert previous reply]</p>

<p>This reply was gold. Honestly, I think I just wiped the floor with you. How can you possible redeem yourself after such a crushing blow?</p>

[cobftw]

<p>Goingmeta, your more recent arguments have just been ridiculous. You’re not even defending yourself logically anymore. People that have to use sarcasm to the extent you are are just reverting to more childish ways to argue. The volume of trash talk in this thread really blew up.</p>

[heampopy]

<p>

@goingmeta

I’ll let you in on a little secret: your claim about me being the only one failing to understand something doesn’t actually carry that much weight when you consider that there are only 4 other people who bothered responding. Not to mention, the majority doesn’t dictate the truth. Do I smell a fallacy?

You might want to get your nose checked. Your accusation essentially stated that I used the wrong connotation of the term “agnostic”. If that was true, only I would be capable of understanding how I used the term. That being the case, all I needed to shut down your allegation would be to show that one other individual had comprehended how I used the term. Case in point: Oneguy21. I happen to have three other individual examples, but his post most extensively demonstrated how I used an alternative connotation of the word “agnostic”. I only mentioned Oneguy21 in my defense, the later observation that you were the only one who failed to understand my connotation was to demonstrate something else entirely.</p>

<p>The disappointing fact that you, and you alone, had failed to comprehend my intended usage of the term was not a counter to your accusation, rather it was simply to show you how oblivious you are. I even made a point to distinguish this observation from the previous counter-argument by beginning a second paragraph.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Who said I thought that? I recognized it from the beginning but didn’t bother to bring it up because you would most likely cry “red herring” if I made a deal about such a trivial grammatical error. I also stated in my previous posts that I thought in both cases the implied noun is the deity’s existence. So even if it’s not explicitly stated, it’s implied. Or are you going to disagree with me over that?

It’s a natural assumption to make given how vehemently you’ve defended the idea of incompletely quoting someone.</p>

<p>Once again:

1. If someone reads the statement literally, the addition of “doesn’t exist” alters the intent of the individual attempting to “prove” a deity’s existence or lack thereof.
2. Without “doesn’t exist”, the entire statement is false. It is hypothetically possible to prove a deity exists through manifestation and some consider the debate over a god’s existence an entirely empirical question.
3. Just quote the entire clause next time, it’ll cost you a half-a-second more. Unless you are physically incapable of dragging your mouse an additional centimeter to the right, the only two reasons you could have for not quoting my entire statement are laziness and/or deliberate distortion.</p>

<p>Pay particular attention to number 3 as it most clearly defines the stupidity of incompletely quoting another person’s assertions. If you are not yet aware of it, we are using computers that allow us to be more thorough in a shorter amount of time.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

I’m amazed that after 20 or so posts of hassling me to tell you what I believed to be your straw man fallacy, you didn’t even bother directly addressing it once I finally made it clear to you what I thought it was. Instead, you just directed me to somebody else’s reply.

Are you dense? If you bothered to refer to my argument addressing Oneguy21, you would have noticed it is meant to concurrently address your “defense” of the straw man attack allegation. You claimed that I had incorrectly applied the term agnostic. If that was true, then no one else would have been able to comprehend my usage of the term. That formed the basis of your current defense of the straw man attack allegation as you finally conceded the contents of post #7 contained an ad hominem or at least I’m assuming you are given that you failed to address it directly this time. You naively believe that if you don’t understand a word’s connotation (and pay close attention to that word as you seem unfamiliar with it), the word is being used incorrectly.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Lol. I’ll look dumber by making typos? I’m so sorry if you actually believe that.

Yes, actually you do. I’ll concede if you give me one legitimate reason why it makes sense to not correct typos. I hope you’re aware that “Annoying other people” is not a legitimate reason. </p>

<p>Nice use of “lol” by the way. You started this discussion sounding like a college-level individual but have now reverted to the AIM-speak of a 13-year-old or a 40-year-old man trying to stay contemporary.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

But you know, bringing up grammatical errors and calling others dumb if they make typos ISN’T indicative that an individual has run out of ways to logically defend himself.

When did I use your grammatical errors or typos to defend myself from an accusation? Are you referring to:

1. When you incompletely quoted me and attempted to use an incomplete thought to accuse me of misusing the term “agnostic”?
2. When I pointed out you spelled “embarrassing” wrong to parody your profuse use of calling me an idiot?
   As far as number 2 goes, which I believe you’re going to attack by saying parody is the same as a defense in this case, I even labeled it “For example” and had a preceding argument.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Re-assert what you think and then repeat the comic with some words which have been replaced.

I’m sorry, what do you mean? I believe your accusation was simply “you compared me to a stubborn religious person”. The purpose of the comic’s script remains the same, though the subject does not. I am not comparing you to a “stubborn religious person” so you’d be well advised to expunge yourself of such false notions. If you think you’re still being compared to a “stubborn religious person”, then you’re allowing your stereotypes of the religious infringe upon your ability to make a fair judgment. The person being described in the comic does not only apply to “believers”, you just happen to be obsessed with whacking the straw man.</p>

<p>

@goingmeta

I’ll just take this as a tacit admission of you being incapable of understanding sarcasm.

I’m quite capable of understanding sarcasm. The quote I was addressing was the accusation that I was comparing you to a “stubborn religious person”, an accusation devoid of sarcasm. Now you’re saying you were being sarcastic despite the fact that you clearly took the accusation seriously when you attempted to defend it in two subsequent posts.</p>

<p>A simple solution would be to not use sarcasm at all. You’re evading rational debate by focusing on personal attacks as the purpose of sarcasm is to insult another person’s intelligence. All you’ve accomplished are some failed attempts to make yourself look smarter (which is unfortunate because the actual content of the debate shows otherwise) while failing to make an actual argument. Sarcasm can be a useful tool, but when your entire argument is riddled with it, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? </p>

<p>

@goingmeta

Honestly, I think I just wiped the floor with you.

Luckily, I know that any assertion stating you’re doing even a remotely good job is sarcastic. That would be ridiculous.</p>