I didn't know where to post it lol. I was directing it at the other theist though, not you.

I could never talk like that to a chick with pretty eyes...

Hahaha, this is a funny thread.

Fear of death is natural, it encourages us survive and produce the next generation. Of course, we're sentient, so we have the capability to move beyond what our instincts tell us.

All I can say is: eat some, sleep some, work some, play some, be curious, be nice to others, take responsibility for your actions, be happy, enjoy every moment.

It happens everyday in a court of law. 

LOL no it doesn't. If the court doesn't have a jury, the decision is with the judge. If the court has a jury, it's not decided by majority. The decision has to be unanimous, or else it's a hung jury(in which case the case is retried). I wouldn't consider 12 people to be "the popular stance" since everyone else that is paying attention to the trial outumbers them. Plus the jury isn't there to decide the evidential merits of a statement, the judge decides this. The jury simply decide if the prosecutor made their case, or if there's reasonable doubt.

I don't consider all philosophical and religious beliefs to be equally valid. I trust that you do not either. However, that everyone has beliefs and exercises some element of faith in life is really indisputable.

Paisley, you are not qualified to judge how much or how little contentment specific individuals derive from their philosophy, just as I couldn't even begin to judge you in relation to how much you derive from your faith, however delusional it might be. So stop acting like the typical christian bigot and try emulating the flower-power bit of your chosen creed. It would do you a world of good, I think, and it would definitely improve the odour of future interventions by you here.

As regards the claim that courts of law use majority decisions as the basis of deciding validity - this is not true, as said above, and is especially not true in relation to the validity of evidence, which after all was the context in which you made such a stupid claim. A hundred eye-witnesses could be in accord with what they think they saw, but if one piece of irrefutable objective evidence contradicts their subjective opinion it renders that opinion inadmissable. Even more to the point, even if their opinion cannot be disproven there and then, if no corroborative objective evidence can support their claim then it renders it questionable, and therefore reason for doubt. This is a fundamental feature of an intelligent and unbiased justice system and it is exactly the criteria by which your chosen delusion is rejected as valid by many atheists here. Tough if you don't like it, but that's how it is with fantasy. If it can't be backed up with evidence it doesn't matter how many people buy into it. It's still fantasy.

And it's a good thing too that it is so. Otherwise people like you on juries would stupidly condemn innocent people based on a concept of justice which is odious in the extreme. Religious adherence encourages such stupidity, so it's not entirely your fault you are the way you are. But the rest of us need protection from you - as your claim above amply demonstrates.

I wish I could nail you to a cross right now, Seriously.

If you could fucking read, you would have seen where I said it was just as bad(if not worse) when I had belief.

I'm not taking the pussy "faith" route when there is no evidence for a psychopathic God that I wouldn't want to spend eternity with anyways.

Seeing his backside like Moses did would be tight as fuck though

The strength of the prosecutor's case is determined by the amount and the reliability of the evidence presented. In order for the prosecution to win the case, the jury must unanimously vote that the defendant's guiltiness has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. Thus, in this scenario, the jury is the "we," so the set-up implied by your statement is incorrect. Likewise, if you're not in the jury, you have no obligation to conclude that the defendant is guilty based on the decision of the jury, for the jury only represents the decision of the court. So, an ad populum is not continuously being committed in court. 

And, furthermore, why does it even matter? Just because court systems commit ad populum, you can too? You're using an appeal to authority to defend an appeal to popularity. That's just pathetic.

hahahhahahhaha @ if he worked out

Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy expensive?

LOLOLOLOLOL

Good for you... but here's a hint

NO ONE ELSE DOES, EITHER

Trading in one faith for the peddling of another huh?

"Yes dear brothers, life is magically more meaningful, all we have to do is believe that there is no afterlife, because life has this inherent meaning that we're missing, and once we abandon the religious myth, we can accept the secular myths about how leaving God will lead to Disney Land, of cotton candy and gum drops, as they have in Sweden. Yes, salvation is here folks, just get it by relying on the Brian Sapients, Richard Dawkins, and the homies at the RRS."

Here's alternative piece of advice, "this is the only life you got, f*&^, cheat and steal to your hearts content, don't bother living it for others, in this silly dependence on this notion of lasting memories after death. Who gives a crap about what's left behind after you die, it's not like you're going to remember any of it. Seek out pleasure, in whatever form you may find it. Live everyday like it was your last one, spend it in a brothel. Don't buy the bullshit about salvation from street peddlers of faith like Cali-Atheist, or her post-christian delusions. Allow that indifference to be that guiding light."

Not necessarily. If someone says "You're a fucking idiot" after their interlocutor delivers an argument, it is not necessarily an antecedent to an implied conclusion that their argument is false. Usually it is a conclusion where a premise is that the argument that was delivered was ridiculous. In other words, you seem to think that an insult is a premise in a syllogism of the following form:

Premise: You are an idiot

Premise 2: Your idiocy indicates that your argument is ridiculous

Conclusion: Your argument is ridiculous

When in fact, it is usually stated as a conclusion for a syllogism of the following form, where it is taken as a premise that the argument in question is ridiculous. This is why, in general, insults should follow rebuttals to avoid confusion between these two.

P1: Your argument is ridiculous

P2: The ridiculous nature of your argument indicates that you are an idiot

C: Therefore, you are an idiot.

The latter is far more common.

As I have already demonstrated, I am perfectly familiar with this fallacy (and the rest of the standard formal and informal fallacies). I hardly need a lecture on logic from you.

You seriously want to get into a competition on who is more intelligent here? Have you read my work on this site? If you wish to get into a competition over intelligence, be my guest.

Agreed. Religious faith is actually a faculty not unlike sight. You either see or you don't. And it is pointless for those with vision to discuss the experience of seeing with those who have been born blind and are convinced that no one can see.

You don't actually live through that for a thousand years. It only takes a couple of days before you're dead and beyond feeling it. Though it is indeed a very painful time.

Oh really? Can you, um, link a scientific article demonstrating how faith is perceived? So yeah, uuuhh, we perceive light with our eyes. What do you perceive faith with? 

If an individual explicitly states that he is suffering from depression/anxiety and thanatophobia (crippling fear of death), then I think I am qaulified to make an evaulation of the individual's belief-system - especially when that statement is made in the context of an "Atheist vs. Theist" forum. 

The claim that I originally made is that evidence is subject to personal interpretation. I suggest you go back and do your homework before you comment.

What constitutes "irrefutable and objective evidence" is subject to personal interpretation. In this particular case, I suspect it is the personal interpretation of the judge!

It's therapy, with a fancy name that basically means "tiered desensitization." Basically, CBT teaches you to be less ill at ease with situations that would trigger physical reactions by introducing the uncomfortable situations a bit at a time. Like for me, at least for a while, CBT helped me to be able to speak to people in public- random people- far more often than I did before.

So you're paying for therapy, and that's it. Though therapy IS expensive- especially *good* therapy.

Well, typically in the course of an argument labeling someone as an idiot, is extending beyond the reach of the argument into ad hominem territory. Being that the bases, most of the time at least, is not necessarily to point out the fault in a person's argument but rather an emotional appeal to turn individuals off from taking that person seriously. The intention is not for others to see that the persons claims are wrong based on an assessment of his argument but rather based of the volatility of the term "idiot". 

If i were to say all atheist are idiots, to those who engage with them in debates, I'm more than likely implying that all their arguments are idiotic and not to be take seriously, even if I don't explicitly say this. But you're right, merely claiming someone is an idiot is not an ad hominem attack, though it's an insult. It is just that it's rarely in usage "merely", but a term used with implications that render it an ad hominem attack.

A simple example can be, imagine if you as a mod decided to edit each theist post on this forum, with the disclaimer above each one that says: "remember, all theist are idiots", though you don't have to explicitly mention the second part we could all see what's clearly being implied "remember, all theist are idiots, therefore all their arguments are more than likely idiotic." Which would by implication alone would be an ad hominem attack in the course of a debate. 

Forgive me, if I'm skeptical in believing that a high level donor to the RRS, who has a poster of the twin towers attached with motto of a John Lennon song, is my intellectual superior. But tout your horn if you so wish, the choir over here might like to suck your dick, but don't think so highly of yourself because of it. 

You might think so, but you'd be wrong. What you are doing there of course is what all religious people do - confuse their own presumption with logic.

There is no logic to the claim you make above on your own behalf. You could just as readily extrapolate from the OP's statement regarding his anxieties concerning death which type of cereal he eats for breakfast. He gave as much indication in his post regarding that topic as his religious belief, and any extrapolation you make about either is informed by your own desire to impose your presumptions and not by the data you were given.

More wishful thinking on your part and again completely wrong. Evidence, by its nature, removes the requirement for subjective personal interpretation. It does not of course remove the tendency for stupid or bigoted people to apply subjective personal interpretation to the evidence (you know yourself) but that is one area where the justice system - as long as it isn't corrupted from within by such prejudiced people - seeks always to establish that essential principle in the minds of adjudicators, be they jury or judge.

And this stupid claim is inevitably where your previous stupidity brings you. If what you said was universally true then there is no justice system anywhere worth speaking of. Nor could there be science. And in fact whole swathes of intellectual activity in which logic, reason or experiment play a role would be expunged from the human experience.

But of course it isn't true. Fortunately for humanity, it is only in the fevered imagination of the deluded religionist that such a ridiculous claim even makes sense. Your failure to distinguish between the central component in the make-up of a corrupt or incompetent judge and the act of judging itself speaks volumes about your own psychiatric problems, but thankfully bears no relation to how civilized society comports itself nor to how humanity applies itself to intelligent progress.

I realise of course you have as much chance of realising your error (and it's a fundamental one in every sense) as a dung-beetle has of defining Euler's totient function, but then that disability too is a feature of the same illness which forces you to come out with such unmitigated crap in the mistaken belief that you are advertising your intellect.

You do succeed admirably in advertising the opposite however, for which I do express some little gratitude since it serves as a salutary reminder, should one be needed, of the intellectual atrophy induced by bigotry, and bigotry expressed as religion in particular. Even dung-beetles show a superiority over you in that respect, and that IS something worth thinking about!

Quite frankly, while not soley responsible for it, the suggestion that religion had nothing to do with the events on 9/11 is at least as ludicrous as the suggestion that it was wholy responsible for them. Religion is the binding power that allowed Al Qaeda to organize to such a degree of efficiency that allowed the attack to succeed, pathetic and miniscule as the attack itself ended up being.

Besides, when roughly 90% of the people who argue for theism in places like this do so from an emotional standpoint, it is especially effective to return the favour. You mention that you think it is ludicrous that evolution could spawn Columbine. Take into consideration that a significant majority of the theists we encounter disagree with you.

Can I just clear something up about "Ad Hominem" since we obviously have someone in our midst who is a little confused.

The phrase we all really should be arguing about anyway is "Argumentum Ad Hominem" as that is what is proving difficult to comprehend, and the substance of the contention arising from this miscomprehension is concerning itself primarily with one particular usage of the "Argumentum Ad Hominem" which is known in rhetoric as the "Ad Hominem Fallacy".

All three have specific meanings in terms of rhetoric, and all three are different.

"Ad Hominem" means simply "to the man" and in fact any remark addressed to another individual is by definition "ad hominem" on that basis. It is a neutral expression. It implies nothing by way of qualification or character assessment, though by definition a direct insult is of course "ad hominem" (as would be a glowing compliment).

"Argumentum Ad Hominem" means an argument directed against an individual which seizes on a personal characteristic of the individual. Again, this can be a valid rhetorical technique if, as is often the case, that same characteristic can be used to illustrate a characteristic of the target's own stated argument. Pointing out an individual's hypocrisy, for example, is a common employment of the technique, especially if that individual is attempting to coerce others into doing what he is obviously not prepared to do himself. In this example the "Argumentum Ad Hominem" is not only absolutely germaine to the subject under debate, but it quite often is the most effective method of rhetorically destroying the opponent's own specious argument.

The "Ad Hominem Fallacy" is essentially a misuse of the "Argumentum Ad Hominem" in that it employs a similar accusation against the opponent, but focuses on a characteristic which itself is not germaine to the subject. That's what makes it a fallacy. Of the three rhetorical terms therefore it is the only one which alludes to cheating in order to "win" an argument, and is the only one to which one can reasonably object if it is employed against one. Incidentally it does not have to be employed insultingly either. Flattery can also be employed in such a technique, though admittedly it takes a little more skill and is consequently rarer.

I am a great fan of both "Ad Hominem" and even the "Argumentum Ad Hominem" myself, especially when I find I am arguing with dickheads. In fact, not letting them know that I know they are dickheads is something I would consider rather a failure on my part, and potentially a catastrophic failure if they are hypocritical or deluded dickheads hoping to fool others into believing they are right.  It need not be done in overtly insulting terms but I generally let my opponent decide what tenor in which he wishes to conduct the exchange and then proceed on that basis, so it often is.

And here's the really important bit. If you are the target of "Ad Hominem" remarks which you then decry as usage of "Ad Hominem Fallacy" when in fact they are competely relevant, if insulting, responses to your argument, then in fact it is you who are employing the "Ad Hominem Fallacy", not your opponent. By deflecting the discussion into one of being insulted and implicitly disparaging your opponent in doing so, it is you who has actually performed the rhetorical transgression you claim to abhor.

Religious people tend to do both in any case, just for good measure. They employ the fallacial technique at the drop of a hat as a form of attack, and then unwittingly employ it just as regularly when they and their arguments are called into question, an eventuality they are poorly prepared for having been taught that the "Ad Hominem Fallacy" is in fact alright to use if the character assassination element of it can be attributed to their deity's will to prevail (ie. it's ok for them to use but not anyone else). But then, when one has such a weak argument to begin with, such lapses into hypocrisy are inevitable, aren't they?

And often totally deserving of insult, I might add. In fact I can think of little else which warrants insult as readily.

Drop chem and that becomes an accurate picture of my credentials.

I just had to pipe in...

Thats pretty much every T-shirt... period... regardless of language

Well Hamboy if you knew how to read, you might avoid looking like an idiot yourself:

"Well, according to the logic you seem to advocate for labeling someone an idiot, you're an idiot." 

Well, again my little idiot, I never claimed that DG was engaging in an ad hominem.