Your opinion is noted.

[William]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #364]

Nice analogy. I’m sure we could all come up with similar ones to support our own world view.

The message “turn to God, or there will be trouble” has been re-stated countless times and in countless ways since Christianity began. Deuteronomy 28 might still hold sway over some people, but most now see it for what it is: baseless fearmongering.

Your opinion is noted.

Regarding the phrase;

"Your opinion is noted."

Q: For those who say this within the context of debating, what is meant by that?

It does not in itself present any argument, and is more just a one-liner as far as I can tell.

Q: For those who's opinion is 'noted', what do you make of this type of reply? Is it helpful to the debate or considered to be an Acquiesce?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]

But even there (and haven't I noticed it with my evidentially true 'principle of embarrassment') the makeweight in the argument is dismissed without comment apparently because it isn't what is being 'Generally Said', and that is just what 'your opinion is noted' (read 'I'm not listening') means.

I think it is something also of an attempt to "have the last word" and is equally as useful a device of debate as sudden silence whereby the one you were arguing with suddenly fails to respond.

At first it appears they have up and left the forum - but lo and behold they eventually return to continue their style of 'battle' in some other thread or another and will even eventual get around to resuming arguing with you - and when you then bring up the fact that there are still unanswered questions in other threads they abandoned, they make some statement along the lines that they already covered all that and see no reason to repeat themselves and sometimes even give you links to this supposed stuff so you can waste your time looking only to find no such thing really...it has all been a figment of their imagination but still has the potential to produce something approaching legitimacy among the readers who have not been following the process from the go-get - so it makes it look like the fault lies elsewhere/with others not themselves.

Skullduggery? For sure.

A form of deception? Undoubtably.

Sad to see?

Once upon a time, but now pretty much expected.

Oh well, let's be fair. We get some pretty tough Theists who argue stoutly and as honestly as Theist apologetics will let them. I'm just aware that there is always the option (when they are losing) to weasel out with the deep dive, the flare -up and the flounce. 'Let's agree to differ' and 'my opinion is as good as yours' being one of the perennial favourites.

I wouldn't dream of speaking for you here or anywhere else. However I have to explain that 'I think' means 'I'm making my own argument rather than cutting and pasting from some website' and it has to rest on what I can argue. The readers will have to make up their own minds and - unless you post some valid counter argument, which you have not done - your comments don't help you or the cause you are trying to argue,

Who said I wanted help for my cause? I don't think people know what my 'cause' is. When someone posts their opinion I let them have it and they are welcome to it. I do not debate to change people's opinions and folks that get salty because I don't try, will just have to move on.

I don't mind what you do or how you think you are approaching the discussion. People are looking to see who has the best case and someone trying to duck, dive, shift the goalposts and finally run away shouting 'I win' will be seen as a loser - just so long as the atheist points it out as such ploys can deceive the unwary. Or that's how I see it and if I'm wrong, no harm done If I am right you just wasted yourself a post.

[2timothy316]

I don't mind what you do or how you think you are approaching the discussion. People are looking to see who has the best case and someone trying to duck, dive, shift the goalposts and finally run away shouting 'I win' will be seen as a loser - just so long as the atheist points it out as such ploys can deceive the unwary. Or that's how I see it and if I'm wrong, no harm done If I am right you just wasted yourself a post.

I can assure you that my interest in these forums are not like yours.

People are not looking to see who has the best case. They are looking for justification for what they believe. They will indeed, duck, dive, shift the goalposts to run away saying 'i win'. My questions is, what did they win that they didn't already have.

If someone thinks I won, great! What did I win? If someone thinks I lost, what did I lose?

[JoeyKnothead]

I can assure you that my interest in these forums are not like yours.

People are not looking to see who has the best case. They are looking for justification for what they believe.

I find it difficult to think folks wouldn't believe what they perceive to be the best case.

Heck, we got one member trying to argue the resurrection was a true and factual event (or believes it so), no matter how many holes gets poked in their boat.

They will indeed, duck, dive, shift the goalposts to run away saying 'i win'. My questions is, what did they win that they didn't already have.

If someone thinks I won, great! What did I win? If someone thinks I lost, what did I lose?

A not unreasonable way to go.

I don't consider these debates so much on win or lose, but on reality and fact versus beliefs that don't reflect em neither one.

[2timothy316]

I can assure you that my interest in these forums are not like yours.

People are not looking to see who has the best case. They are looking for justification for what they believe.

I find it difficult to think folks wouldn't believe what they perceive to be the best case.

Really? Where have you been throughout this pandemic? "Best case" has become subjective. Those that can't see that, then I'd have to ask what are they look at?

If the past year should teach us anything, it is that people will seek what they think is the best case for their beliefs not what is truly the best case for all of mankind.

[JoeyKnothead]

I can assure you that my interest in these forums are not like yours.

People are not looking to see who has the best case. They are looking for justification for what they believe.

I find it difficult to think folks wouldn't believe what they perceive to be the best case.

Really? Where have you been throughout this pandemic?

If the past year should teach us anything, it is that people will seek what they think is the best case for their beliefs.

Exactly - folks'll set em to what they consider the best case (argument).

So we get one bunch that wears masks and get vaccinated, and another bunch winning em the Herman Cain award.

[2timothy316]

I can assure you that my interest in these forums are not like yours.

People are not looking to see who has the best case. They are looking for justification for what they believe.

I find it difficult to think folks wouldn't believe what they perceive to be the best case.

Really? Where have you been throughout this pandemic?

If the past year should teach us anything, it is that people will seek what they think is the best case for their beliefs.

Exactly - folks'll set em to what they consider the best case (argument).

So we get one bunch that wears masks and get vaccinated, and another bunch winning em the Herman Cain award.

Best case...who's best case?

So for clarification let me amend my post,
People are not looking to see who has the best case for mankind. They are looking for justification for their 'best case' that serves themselves.

So when opinion enters a debate...I'm done. I lose all interest. Especially when that opinion comes from 'my nurse friend on facebook'.

[JoeyKnothead]

Best case...who's best case?

So for clarification let me amend my post,
People are not looking to see who has the best case for mankind. They are looking for justification for their 'best case' that serves themselves.

I was thinking in terms of individual debate topics here on the site, and can't fuss too much with your angle here.

Cept to note there's one bunch who think it's best for mankind if they be allowed to establish a theocracy, and another bunch that thinks it's best for mankind to not. Among other deals.

[2timothy316]

Best case...who's best case?

So for clarification let me amend my post,
People are not looking to see who has the best case for mankind. They are looking for justification for their 'best case' that serves themselves.

I was thinking in terms of individual debate topics here on the site, and can't fuss too much with your angle here.

Cept to note there's one bunch who think it's best for mankind if they be allowed to establish a theocracy, and another bunch that thinks it's best for mankind to not. Among other deals.

Debating opinion is...just fruitless.

Ha! Lets say for a moment that the Bible record is true. That would mean that the last true theocracy was Israel. How did that turn out? But the really important question is WHY did it turn out the way it did? See, this is a good debate topic. Opinion wouldn't have much weight in such a debate. Those that only care about expressing their opinion wouldn't care about such a debate.

[JoeyKnothead]

Debating opinion is...just fruitless.

You present an opinion, and in the same sentence declare debating opinion is fruitless. That's kinda goofy.

Ha! Lets say for a moment that the Bible record is true. That would mean that the last true theocracy was Israel.

Please note, I was referring to calls or attempts to create new theocracies, not to create established theocracies. Think of General Flynn's recent comments here in Murica.

My How did that turn out?

I support Israel's right to exist specifically because they suffered so much religious based oppression in the past. I don't fear a bit travelling among the Jews.

But the really important question is WHY did it turn out the way it did? See, this is a good debate topic. Opinion wouldn't have much weight in such a debate.

I think opinion is an important thing to consider, but do agree fact and logic are a great way to go.

[Purple Knight]

Even if there is no evidence presented, only an opinion, I try to find the nugget of truth in what someone is putting forth and address it, because if there was not such a nugget, they wouldn't believe that in the first place. Logical chivalry.

I have perhaps... actual faith... that humans are rational beings, despite the fact that we don't always treat each other as such. It's easy to assume the person on the other end of the debate is simply crazy, believing something for factually no reason. Irrational is a bit of a euphemism here, because if you think there is really no good reason for them to think that, you think they're literally crazy.

I think most of the people locked up for being crazy aren't crazy, let alone the people whose sanity has never been legally called into question. Perhaps this is too much credit to give, but I don't think the human race would have survived if our ability to discern truth was as bad as the intellectual elite would have you believe.