McBell
Admiral Obvious
yes you did.
But then Liars For Jesus are liars.
It is even in the name.
It is my thought that you should probably stop while you still have at least one partial foot NOT in your mouth...
but feel free to do you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?
- Thread starter wordy80
- Start date
But then Liars For Jesus are liars.
It is even in the name.
It is my thought that you should probably stop while you still have at least one partial foot NOT in your mouth...
but feel free to do you.
Show me where I’ve whined “so excessively“.
‘All the whining I’ve done’….
ROFL!
Another baseless accusation.
Lol.
My younger brother used to say that to me all the time, when he was 12!
Oops, I quote mined!
McBell
Admiral Obvious
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
"I don't believe the claim that a god exsts"
vs
"I believe the claim that there are no gods".
Look friend .. your entire post is name calling and false accusaion .. like the last one.. but you fail to substantiate these insults to my good nature and then call me rude ?! .. This is priceless projection .. and name calling is not an argument for much ..
I realize it is difficult for you to hear that your beliefs are based on fallacy -- just like the religious right creationists. If you find correction rude .. is that not what you came here for .. correction ?
You cry out "Your don't understand" then run around crying others are angry and arrogant. What is there to understand mate ? -- we are all ears to hear what wisdom the grand Atheist Poobah has to reveal about what an atheist is ?! What is it that we don't understand about being an atheist that you feel is so important that you are compelled to behave like this.
What about Atheism was misunderstood ? Donut
yes .. your level is dropping very quick ... your beliefs based on fallacy .. just like the flat earthers and religious right creationists.
Your disagreement with my position .. negates the need for specific quote .. The claim on the table ... the conversation you jumped into .. involved a statement about God. having no bearing on what you believe to be true or false .. so who is it that does not understand .. and who's problem is this ?
I have asked for clarification .. what means "GOD" .. what is being defined as a Godly power? If you have no comment on this question .. why are you here .. other than to drop the level of conversation fastar than a feather in a vacuum .. and project some of your logical failings onto others ?
It matters not to the fact that either statement requires that you define what you mean by "God" / Godly Power in order for the statement not to be complete nonsense .. and in both cases your belief is false.
Substitute the word "Nothing" in for God .. which is what you are saying when God is not defined.
"I don't believe the claim that nothing exists" .. is a claim that something exists. If Something is defined as God - then you believe that God exists.
Your beliefs are based on logcal fallacy.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it was calling you out for you behavior. You do not even know what "projection" is. I tried to explain how you were being rude in earlier posts but it appears that you did not understand.
If you claim "fallacy" the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate the fallacy. Creationists do the same thing, they will claim that someone used a fallacy and then fail at supporting it. The term "fallacy" is not a magic wrod.
Oh my, more rudeness and name calling and then demanding an answer. That is not how one debates or has a discussion. Try again.
Look .. you cried out that I have misunderstood Atheism .. this was followed up with name calling and false accusation .. ..
You make statements about God .. claiming God / Godly powers do not exist.. I simply asked you to define your terms .. define what you mean by Godly powers .. and gave a few examples of things given by others.
You refused to give a definition.. thus we know nothing about what you mean by "God" ... so we can substitute "Nothing" in place of God in your sentence.. .. "God does not exist" then becomes "Nothing does not exist" .. so you are saying that something exists .. substitute God back in and we get .. ding ding ding God Exists LOL .. circular fallacious nonsense is the foundation for your belief .. giong round and round.. banging head each time ..
Me Philosopher - Great Scientist -- SubD .. not so much .. so understand that crucifixion of your predeliction was well intended.
Now .. did you wish to give coherent thought to the question .. if HeyZeus strolled into the Bar .. sat next to you and professed to have Godly Powers . what would it take to make you a believer ! Fire from the sky through force of will .. telekenisis make the walls of the room blow out with a flick of the wrist... .. What is it that you don't belief in ? "Nothing" .. a hilarious answer directly the reverse of how the Bible Belt creationist will respond .. defining God as "The God of Everything" .. which when substituted into our little logic algorithm .. is reduced to the God of nothing .. based on the same failed logic just in reverse direction .
The big difference is .. We know who implanted the "Thought stopping" algorithm in the Religious right . what is the excuse in the case of the secular respondent ?? this I dont get .. and dont take it personally .. go boo hoo complaining about being rude .. as this is not limited to you .. this is most every atheist so far .. would be at least 6 including yourself in this thread ... and I find this quit disturbing to be sure but at the same time extremely curious as to the source of this imbalance in the force.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are conflating your argument with @TagliatelliMonster with me. I merely pointed out your error and that was too much for you.
You are relying on false dichotomies.
your fallacy is not my error .. you jumped into a conversation and cried nonsense false accusations "You don't know what an atheist is" .. and when asked to share with us what we don't know about belief in atheism you managed to come up with nothing .. the same nothing fallacy your atheist beliefs are based on .. but not just you and TB .. many others .. just scroll back in the thread . all engating in the same circular brain thumping fallacy .. whether or not they wish to admit it to themselves .. notice TB just stopped responding .. ran away from the playground .. as did all the others... victims of this strange affliction. and your guess is as good as mine the source .. ..
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my more nonsense and projection. Who is "TB"? At any rate that is probably the wisest thing to do.
TM the other poster you mentioned .. and dude .. more false accusations that you will fail to support. You were the one jumped into the conversation crying "You don't know what Atheism is" . and has refused to tell us what it is you figure we don't know .. unable to give up on crucified position and complete logic fail.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
False.
In the first statement, one is expressing a position on a claim that someone else is making. It's upto that person to define the terms they are using.
Several options:
- either they fail to properly define the terms, in which case not accepting the claim as true (aka "not believing it") is a rational position
- they define the term and fail to meet their burden of proof, in which case not accepting the claim as true (aka "not believing it") is a rational position
The first statement reflects my position. It's what defines my atheism.
The first statement is not an expression of a belief. It is the opposite.
"not believing" something, is not a belief.
Just like "not playing soccer", is not a sport.
Again, it's upto the person making the claim to define the terms used.
Do you believe gooblydockbloblo exists?
Regardless of your answer, who's job is it to define gooblydockbloblo ?
Mine, or yours?
Says the person who's been arguing a strawman all this time.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
LOL
So you accuse me of having made certain claims, and you feel like there is no need for you to quote me where I supposedly made those claims?
Owkay then.
You know, you could also be honest and just acknowledge that your accusation was false and that the reason you can't quote me making such claims, is simply because I didn't make such claims.
The problem is that the claim you put on the table, is a strawman.
That's what this conversation is actually about.
Ask the people who claim it exists.
Indeed, I don't. I'm not the one making claims about such things.
The point. You keep missing it.
To point out your strawman. To point out how what you do is a species of shifting the burden of proof.
It is not upto the people who do not believe / accept a claim concerning X to define X.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
We've been trying, but the attempts seem to be in vain.
It looks like you are hellbend on sticking to your strawmen and misunderstandings.
Audie
Veteran Member
Isn't it a bit ungenerous to deny the poor creo
the one argument they have?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Low hanging fruit is low hanging.
So when someone goes out of their way to lower the fruit even further, it should be pointed out.
After it being pointed out when said someone thinks their dragging the already low fruit even lower is some kind of ace in the hole win...
Well, let us just say that it triggers a boredom relief reaction...
Besides which, it gives them epic credibility with their choir to brag about how their faith was tested and they survived with pigeon flying colors.
Last edited:
False.
In the first statement, one is expressing a position on a claim that someone else is making. It's upto that person to define the terms they are using.
Several options:
- either they fail to properly define the terms, in which case not accepting the claim as true (aka "not believing it") is a rational position
- they define the term and fail to meet their burden of proof, in which case not accepting the claim as true (aka "not believing it") is a rational position
The first statement reflects my position. It's what defines my atheism.
The first statement is not an expression of a belief. It is the opposite.
"not believing" something, is not a belief.
Just like "not playing soccer", is not a sport.
Again, it's upto the person making the claim to define the terms used.
Do you believe gooblydockbloblo exists?
Regardless of your answer, who's job is it to define gooblydockbloblo ?
Mine, or yours?
Says the person who's been arguing a strawman all this time.
False .. you responded to me.. who is not the one making claims of belief or disbelief in Gods .. You responded to my request to another poster who was expressing a disbelief in God .. "Godly powers"
I asked what how was God being defined .. and to this you started bellyaching about how a definition is not needed . at which point you were informed that without a definition .. the statement "I do not believe in God" is nonsense.
Now do you understand why it is that your beliefs are based in fallacy. Believing that you can be an atheist without having a definition for God .. is a belief based on fallacy.
Now that you have been corrected .. go and change your perspective
